HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.981,985&995 King St.A65-93
.
"'"
<
CASELOAD Su}~RY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 11/01/93 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737-074-16-001/003 A65-93
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
PROJECT NAME: Billinqs Property Residential GMOS. Subdivision. PUD
and GMOS Exemption
Project Address: 981. 985 and 995 Kinq st.
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Carla Billinqs. C.L. Astor & Co.
Applicant Address: 2727 DeAnza Rd. Shore Dr. #33. San Dieqo. CA
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann. Vann Associates
Representative Address/Phone: 230 E. Hopkins
Aspen. CO 81611 925-6958
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$3925.00
$ 234.00
$ 55.00
$
$4214.00
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
20
20
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:
P&Z Meeting Date~ PUBLIC
VESTED
1 STEP: 2
HEARING: (:iii)
RIGHTS: YES
STEP:
NO
NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
NO
NO
DRC Meeting Date
/"-1'1
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
c x' City Attorney X Parks Dept. School District
)( City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
. )( Housing Dir. . Fire Marshal CDOT
. X Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
tlolr /7 K Cit}' Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board
{VOSS Envir.Hlth. e X ACSD )( Other 1RE5 shats
, ><' Zoning X Energy Center Other
DATE REFERRED: ! 11 '5 INITIALS: -510 DUE: 2 / n
;~~~~=;~~;~~~7================~~;;=;~~;;~7=;?I~q;1=~~~;~~~7~=fJ
___ City Atty ___ City Engineer ___zoning Env. Health
___ Housing ___ Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
VII a..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Diane Moore, city Planning
@~
Director-aY!
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM:
Mary Lackner, Planner
DATE:
March 28, 1994
RE:
Billings Subdivision/PUD, GMQS Exemption and Vested
Rights - Second Reading of Ordinance 4, Series 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning
Off ice recommend approval of the Subdivision to create a 9,130
sq. ft. parcel, PUD to vary the minimum lot area requirement, GMQS
Exemption for an on-site affordable dwelling unit, and for vested
property rights. The Billings Residential GMQS application was
awarded 34.4 points in the residential GMQS competition by the
Planning Commission on January 4, 1994.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council considered the applicant's
request at first reading on February 14, 1994, and the request was
tabled to the February 28 meeting due to neighborhood comments.
Council approved first reading on February 28, 1994 and will
consider the application at public hearing tonight. Staff has
responded to the neighborhood concerns in the current issues
section of this memo. Since the original neighborhood letter was
submi tted on February 14, the neighborhood has submitted a new
letter dated February 28, 1994, which supports the applicant I s
request. The applicant has agreed to restrict the Astor
Subdivision against further subdivision.
The application package was distributed to city Council at first
reading.
City Council approved the allocation of the 1993 residential GMQS
on February 28, 1994 by Resolution 94-8.
city Council approved the Astor Subdivision in 1980. This is a
three lot subdivision and each lot is improved with a duplex unit.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mrs. Carla Billings (the
applicant) seeks a residential GMQS allocation for one free-market
dwelling unit to be located on a newly created parcel within the
Astor Subdivision. The applicant is also proposing an affordable
dwelling unit on the new lot as required by section 24-8-
104(C) (1) (c) of the Municipal Code. This is the only residential
GMQS application for the 1993 competition. Please refer to the
complete application package, Exhibit "A".
/'"....
........
The project is located at 981, 985, and 995 King street, which
includes Lots 1-3 of the Astor Subdivision, and contains 45,280
sq. ft. of lot area. This subdivision is zoned R-6.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached in Exhibit
"B" of this memorandum.
CURRENT ISSUES: At the February 14, 1994 meeting, a neighborhood
letter was distributed to City Council which identifies some
concern of the neighbors regarding this application. Under the
existing Lot 1 configuration (prior to this subdivision request)
the applicant would have the ability to develop another single
family residence (a GMQS allotment is required) with the required
affordable housing mitigation. This could be accomplished without
subdividing the parcel. The applicant, however, has requested a
resubdivision of the Astor Subdivision and a request for one
residential allotment.
The letter from the adjacent neighbors suggests that the applicant
could return in the future and request further subdivision of the
Astor Subdivision. The applicant would first be required to
receive additional residential allotments prior to any subdivision
approval and that review would be subject to the provisions of the
Code at the time of the review.
The applicant has agreed to restrict the entire property against
further subdivision. The applicant has also agreed to a condition
which requires the developer of Lot 1 to relocate the utility line
which crosses Lot 1 and benef its Tom Isaac's property. The
Planning Office has added these conditions to the Ordinance
reflecting this agreement.
The applicant's proposal is consistent with the GMQS requirements
established within the current land use code. This application has
competed for the 1993 residential allotment and it has been
reviewed and scored in accordance with our current GMQS
regulations.
Staff is in the process of amending the Growth Management Quota
System regulations based on the recommendations contained within
the Aspen Area Community Plan for the 1994 GMQS competition. We
are presently discussing the amended language and policy
considerations with the City and county Planning and Zoning
Commissions.
One of the many items under consideration for the revised GMQS
regulation is the Growth Action Plan recommendation that all new
subdivisions house 60% of the employees generated by the
development, as compared to the existing requirement of 35%. As
the proposed GMQS language has not been finalized or adopted by
Council, this proposal mayor may not be consistent with what is
finally adopted. Staff believes that it would be unfair to apply
2
...~,.""
---
new standards prematurely when an applicant has applied under
existing (1993) regulations. Staff did not anticipate the
completion of the GMQS revision prior to the 1994 competition.
Staff discussion of the SUbdivision, PUD, and GMQS Exemption review
criteria is contained in Exhibit "C". Staff and the Commission
believe that this proposal is consistent with the requirements of
the Municipal Code.
section 24-6-207 dictates the process and ordinance language
requirements for establishing vested rights for three years.
Planning and Zoning Commission resolution of approval is attached
for your reference in Exhibit "D".
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval of the Billings SUbdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption and
Vested Rights, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall place the following note on the final
plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access
easement. No road cut off King Street is permitted for
Lot 1."
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3.
The applicant shall
agreement to the city
Final Plat.
submit a sidewalk, curb and gutter
Engineer, prior to recordation of the
4. A housing mitigation program for 1.75 employees must be
approved by City Council and appropriate deed restrictions
must be completed, prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. The right-af-way width to be granted by the applicant shall
be resolved, prior to second reading by Council.
6. The name of the subdivision shall remain the Astor
Subdivision, as there is already a Billings Subdivision within
the City.
7. The applicant shall submit a Final Plat and SUbdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of City Council review, for review
and approval by the city Attorney, city Engineer, and Planning
Office.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
3
-
-
by other conditions.
9. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 has been varied
pursuant to section 24-7-903(B) (4). The total lot area of all
lots within the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area
requirements for the zone district.
10. The applicant shall pay their fair share of paving and
improving the access easement with all lots which use this
easement.
Conditions 3 and 4 of the Planning and zoning commission
recommendation have been changed in the Ordinance as follows:
3. The applicant shall construct a sidewalk along the Astor
Subdivision as it fronts King Street at the time Lot 1 is
developed. A curb and gutter agreement shall be executed and
recorded, prior to recordation of the Final Plat.
4. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions for a one
bedroom, Category 2 affordable housing unit to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval, prior to
issuance of any building permits. Upon approval by the
Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed
restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
Prior to issuance of any building permits for the property,
a copy of the recorded deed restrictions for the new dwelling
units must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
All material representations made by
application and during public meetings
zoning commission and City Council
conditions of approval, unless amended
the applicant in the
with the Planning and
shall be considered
by other conditions.
staff has added the following two conditions which reflect the
agreement between the neighbors and the applicant.
1. The electric utility line located in the proposed Lot 1
building envelope shall be relocated and placed
underground at the expense of the Lot 1 property owner.
2. The Astor Subdivision shall be restricted from further
sUbdivision, resulting in more than four lots.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve second reading of Ordinance
4, Series of 1994 for the Billings SUbdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption
and Vested Rights as discussed in the City Council memorandum dated
March 28, 1994."
4
'",
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 4, Series 1994
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Package submitted at lst reading
"B" - Referral Comments (ACSD, city Engineer, Housing Office)
"C" - Code Review criteria (Subdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption)
"D" - Planning and zoning commission Resolution
"E" - Neighborhood letters (February 14 and February 28)
"F" - Public notice
5
,,_.....
Exhibitd
.Aspen r9onsolidated Sanitation 1)istrict
565 North Mill Street .
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ote I 7 ,c-
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Sy Kelly. Chairman
John J. Snyder. Treas.
Louis Popish. Se<:y.
FA.."{ #(303) 925-253-1- ---
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly
December 15. 1993
Mary Lackner
Planning O:'fice
130 S_ Galena
Aspen. CO 81011
Ra: 5:11ings Prope~ty G~QS
Dea: Ma:v:
A: ~~a prese~~ ~:~e
~~a A3?e~ C=i.3J::da:ac Sa~:~~~:~~ Ji5~::C
has sufficia:lt
1: ;;'2
a:iC
t:aa:~e~: cap3C::/
3' a: '.i:;
OS.ia: ~?ment.
l:i=:'9
t:Oi:l c::n~ection
-=-Q
. --
a~e acw~3':~ea~ l~n= c~n3'~:a:~:3 in :h
~na:,wa are eli~ina~ing ~i~h tu~ds ge~a:3:~
su.:-c:1arges. '.oih~c:-" \licula be a??: ia-::........ ....,.....:
Oklahcma Fla~s a:e~
de'le I cpmen:.
As usual sa~'Jica is
Di3t:ic:'s Rules a~c
Dis::ic: office. Oilce
ca~ be issued throt..:gh
connec:ian fees.
c~r.~i~gen~ u?cn cCffiplianca w::h t~~
Reg'..:la:ions. w;,ic:-. are en ~,; =- .3.: t.~,:
~e:aila~ plans a:e available a :a? pe~mi-
au:, orf ice which ;.J: 11 es~ima~e the to~a
Plea5a cal l if you ha.ve any questio1"'i.5.
Sincerely.
,.., -,
~- "",,.;;-',.....rb
8::-uce Matherly
Dis::,ic~ Manage:'
-
MEMOR..'-\. 'ill l; 1;[
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer (l'f(:...
Date: December 27, 1993
Re: Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PU'D, and GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Depanmem has the following comments:
1. Storm Runoff - For the GMQS scoring, the application meets the minimum standards
of the Municipal Cede.
This application is for a resubdivision of the AstOr Subdivision which was aFproved
by the City Council on )v[ay 13, 1980. The storm runoff requiremems of Section 24-7-
1004.C.4.f should have been applied to developme:1t on the parcels at that time. In any
event. stOrm runoff mitigation in accordance with the Code should be required for futUre
development on any and each of the proposed four lots. Additionally, we would like to
add the requirement that the development plans provide, during construction. for storm
runoff from soils exposed by excavation to be maintained on site and not released to the
Roaring Fork River or public rights-of-way.
2. Trash Storage. The final development plans for each parcel shall indicate on.site trash
storage locations.
3. Utilities - .A.ny new transformers or utility pedestals must be located on easements on
the applicant's property and nOt in the public right-of.way.
4. RilZht-of-wav Width . The right-of.way widths of King Street were created when the
abutting propenies were in the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. The City Eqgineering
Depanme:n records are incomplete concerning the right-of-way widths, but it appears from
the annexation map (The Smuggler Enclave .A.nnexation, Drawing No. 540-44) that the
width varies and may be as narrow as 35 feet or less.
Section 24-7-1004.C.4.a(3) requires a right.of.wav width of 60 feet for a local street
and 80 feet for a collector. (This has generaliy been i~terpreted to apply as 75 feet since
that is the typical dimension for the right-of-way widths in the historical platting of Aspen.)
King Street is at present a one-way street. There is no master plan for future right-
of-way widths fer .A.soen streets or for the eventual two-",",.;,." of Kinq Str~e'. However.
----
both as a primary pedestrian route and as an off-road trail bikeway route. This should
be considered in determining desirable future right-of-way width. An additional
consideration in right-of-way width and use design is the need or plan for on-street
parking.
We recommend that the right-of-way width be enlarged to 60 feet and that
approximately 12.5 feet of right-of-way width be dedicated by the applicant. If additional
right-of-way width is desired, it is typical to acquire right-of-way dedication at the time of
subdivision. Tne are a great number of City land use applications which have provided
for right-of-way dedication in the past,
The breakdown on right-of-wav use dimensions is as follows:
- "
2 sidewalks at 5' wide . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10'
2 vehicle travel lanes at 12' wide ....... 24'
2 '1anes" of on-street parking at 8' ...... 16'
? b ff ". 'd 4'
_ u er spaces at '" W1 e .............
1 bicvcle lane at 6' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6'
. -
Toral ............. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60'
As can be seen, this layOut does not provide for the typical West End buffer spaces
between prope:-:;; line and sidewalk (7.5') and between sidewalk and curb (5'). Presumably
the street will remain one way with the addition of 12' of buffer space to the design. If
one draws a 75' wide right-of-way. which would be about a 20' widening on each side,
the right-of-way line would fall at the doorstep of the existing duplexes.
5. Encroachments - There is a split rail fence located on the City-owned Garrish Park
parcel. It is not clear if the fence belongs to the applicant or to the City. There is also
a split rail fence along the front of Garrish Park on King Street. however the fences on
the interior of the applicant's property are split rail as well. I suspect that the fence
belongs to the applicant. Tnere is also a fence encroaching into the King Street right-
of-way. The applicant may apply for an encroachment license, but it would be preferable
to encumber future development on any of the lots with the requirement that fences be
relocated onto the applicant's property at the time of development/redevelopment.
6, Irrillation Ditches - The final plat must indicate easement widths for the irrigation
ditches togethe:- with letters from the ditch companies accepting the proposed easeqJ.ent
widths. If the City owr;s water rights in the Molly Gibson ditch, we may be concerned
abcut the use of ditch water for a pond.
7. Sidewalk. Curb & Gutter - "Ve recommend that construction of sidewalk be required
at the time of developme::Jt in order to meet the requirements of the Ped Plan. This
requirement is also consistent with Section 19-98 of the Municipal Code.
Generallv, we do not require or permit the construction of selID1ents of curb and
gutter because" of the need for comprehensive neighborhood design f~r storm runoff. As
____..:-1.1.::: _ '_. ,,__ ""_4, ..._ ____..,~ --...._..:__ - ,
",
8. SloDe Density Calculations - The accuracy of the slope density calculations must be
substantiated by the signature and stamp of a registered architect, surveyor or engineer.
9. Street light - The Ped Plan does not indicate that this area is targeted for street lights,
however it should be noted that the Neighborhood Advisory Committee is increasingly
interested in improved street lighting as a night-time pedestrian enhancement_ Chapter
24 provides for requiring street light installation at the time of subdivision. It may be
appropriate to require installation of an antique street light at this time or to require an
agreement to install one at such time as deemed appropriate by the City.
10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
11. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-
of-way, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of developme::lt within public rights-of-way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permitS for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
,6"'"''''-,
MEMORAlmUM
TO:
Planning Of::ice
FROM:
. ,
1;1"'1
Tom Eaker, Housing Officy tv
DA!'::::
Nove~~er 23, 1993
RE:
Referral Comment: Billings Residential GMQS, Subdivision,
PUD and GMQS Exemption
REFERRAL COMMENTS: I~ apcea::.-s tha": t::.is acclication is only
- - - ~
recro.l.:...::=d t:::J m:. tigate f:;-.:: a ::':==dable hc1.:s :":1g for the Res:.dential
G'AQS 00--' ~n 00= -'~Q a-c' i c~-; en and no- s"'-a"'''' s' en or ""UD
4. _... '__-' _ .......- t". -- - -- ~ ~ '-....._ _'# _ _ ~ r.
T~e a;plicant p==;cses t~ p=ov:.de a cr.e-~c~, low i~come (categc=y
#l) U:1:..t at~ached or detac~ed to ~~e p=i~c~?l~ dwe:ling uni~ on Lot
1. T::is ur:.i~ mus~ be a rnin.:..:::u.-:t of 600 ne": liva;:le square feet anc.
be deed r:s~=ict=d ~~ic= to t~e issua~c= c= a b~ilding pe~it for
Lot 1.
T~e::-e is
inc..:..cat:s
a tv'Oc on page 13. The last: sentence of
~ .-"' . 1 d
ca~~gory ~2: ~~~s sncu~ reac Categc~l #1.
paragraph 2
Addi':ienally, Section 8-:06(:::) (5) (0) (iE) s:-.euld be a:::ler".c.ed to)
=aflec~ t:'1at. fc= each bc.=::1 in excess of t~=ee, the oC:::':.loancv
sta~dard increases by .5 residents. Please see page 17 o~ th~
A=for=a~le Heusi~g guideli~es. Since t~e La~d Use Cede s~pe=sedes
the Guidelines, the ap?:ica~ion meets C~= r;qui=e~ents.
,....~'"
~
.-:-:--:-:-----==--=-=--~~.- ....,
JIti I 3s.:.
MEMORANDUM
.... .....-..--.-.
TO:
Mary Lackner
FROM:
Bill Drueding
J}fY/
RE:
Billings Property - Zoning Referral
DATE:
January 13, 1994
=================================================================
1. The applicant should define activity that is allowed outside
of the building envelope. Can decks protrude outside of the
envelope? Are hot tubs, patios, or other activities allowed
beyond the envelope? Is the building envelope actually
defining the setbacks?
2. The road easement will be deducted from the allowable FAR.
Refer to section 3-101, Lot Area Definition, in the Land Use
Code.
3. All area and bulk requirements shall be met at the building
permit stage.
,......
.0",",
Exhibit
c
Subdivision
section 24-7-1004(C)
The Astor Subdivision was platted in 1980. The Subdivision
Agreement approved by the City specifies the limitation of a total
of six dwelling units within the subdivision unless the applicant
receives growth management approval to construct additional units.
This application will supersede the 1980 approval.
Section 7-1004. C sets the following review standards for
subdivision applications:
l.a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) was adopted in
January 1993. The Housing Action Plan identifies this site as
"great" for small, infill units. The applicant approached the
Housing Authority Board to purchase is property for affordable
housing, but it was not obtained by the County. Therefore, the
applicant has pursued the application being reviewed today which
consists of a one-bedroom fully deed restricted unit in conjunction
with a new free-market residence, thus creating a 50/50 unit split
on the property. The Growth Action Plan recommends a minimum of
60% affordable housing with new residential subdivisions (although
60% is not defined as bedrooms or dwelling units or employees) .
The Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan identifies
King Street as a primary pedestrian commuter route and an off-road
bicycle route. The applicant has agreed to join an improvement
district, if one is formed, to facilitate the construction of
pedestrian improvements. Staff recommends that a sidewalk
agreement be filed with the City Engineer, so that construction of
a sidewalk can take place along King Street fronting the Astor
Subdivision at the instance of the City. The applicant has also
agreed to dedicate a trail easement along the Aspen Ditch as it
crosses the lower portion of the subdivision.
The applicant's proposal is consistent with the GMQS requirements
established in the Code. The implementation of the Growth Action
Plan is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission for
revisions in the future and this proposal mayor may not be
consistent with what is finally adopted. The applicant's proposal
is consistent with the Open Space/Recreation and Envir9nment Action
Plan if the applicant files a sidewalk agreement with the City.
l.b. The proposed SUbdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in this area.
Response: King Street contains a mix of single family, duplex and
multi-family dwelling units. The Astor Subdivision is the only
parcel on King Street which is zoned R-6, while the remaining
parcels are zoned R-15 and R-15a. Garrish Park, which is adjacent
to Astor Lots 2 and 3, is zoned Park. Due to the R-6 zoninq,
,..
".-,
additional density will be permitted within the Astor Subdivision
than on surrounding parcels. However, floor area of the R-6 lot
will be less than on a comparable sized lot in the R-15 and R-15a
zone districts. Staff believes the application represents an
infill project in a developed area of town where the majority of
future land use changes will be redevelopment of existing parcels.
l.c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Response: As discussed in item b, there will be no adverse impact
on future development of surrounding properties.
l.d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: All development within the Astor Subdivision will be
required to comply with the requirements of the R-6 zone district
and relevant provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The
applicant is requesting a PUD variance for the minimum lot area
requirement on the newly created parcel. This request is discussed
in the following section.
2.a. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock
or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide,
steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condi tion that will be harmful to the health, saf ety , or
welfare of the residents in the proposed SUbdivision.
Response: None of these natural hazards will affect the proposed
development.
2.b. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or
premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary
public costs.
Response: Since this project is an infill development, no
inefficient spatial patterns, premature extension of public
facilities or unnecessary public costs will be created by the
proposed development. The primary infrastructure to serve
development in the King Street area is already in place.
The applicant will need to submit a Final Plat and Subdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of City Council review, if the project
is approved.
.,-,
<"',""
Planned Unit Development
Section 24-7-903
The applicant is requesting one variance pursuant to Section 7-
903, the PUD section, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The
request is made in order to reduce the minimum lot area requirement
for the newly created parcel. In addition to the review
requi~ements of the Subdivision regulations, PUD adds a requirement
for density reduction for steep slopes. The slope density
reduction calculation prepared for this property does not affect
the proposed development.
The newly created parcel will be 9,130 sq. ft. of which
approximately 1,840 sq. ft. is encumbered by an access easement.
Therefore, for density and floor area purposes, the lot size is
actually 7,290 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a free-market and
an affordable dwelling unit, 4,500 sq.ft. of lot area is required
for each unit, for a total of 9,000 sq.ft. section 7-903.B.4
allows a lot area variance if "the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone
district." When all lots are averaged (easement excluded and slope
density reduction taken into account) the total subdivision
contains 41,160 sq. ft. Therefore, each lot averages 10,260 sq. ft.
in lot area, which exceeds the 9,000 sq.ft. required for each
parcel. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to the Planned
Unit Development regulations because the total lot area of all lots
within the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area for the zone
district.
Staff recommends that the PUD variance be accommodated through the
consolidation of conceptual and final development review because
of the limited extent of the issues involved with the PUD request.
."",..-
'.
GMQS Exemption for an Affordable Rousing unit
section 24-8-104(C) (1) (c)
In order for a residential growth management application to be
competitive and meet a threshold score, a provision of affordable
housing must be made by the applicant. In this application, an on-
site, one-bedroom, low income affordable housing unit is proposed
to be constructed on the newly created parcel. section 8-104.C.1.c
allows City council to exempt these affordable dwelling units based
on the need for the unit, their compliance with the adopted housing
plan, the type of unit and the price category to which the unit
will be deed restricted.
City Council adopts the applicant I s housing mitigation package
based upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission. When
assessing the housing proposal the Commission should consider the
following:
Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop
housing with monies received from payment of
housing dedication fees.
Response: The Housing Authority has a program to acquire land and
develop affordable housing units.
1.
affordable
affordable
2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing.
Response: This site is designated within AACP's Housing Action
Plan as a "great" location for use as affordable housing, however,
the Housing Authority did not purchase the property when it was
offered to them by the applicant.
3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints to develop or historic preservation
concerns.
Response: The site is well suited for affordable housing, due to
its location to downtown Aspen and the available services on-site.
No environmental constraints or historic preservation issues affect
this property.
4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing
being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the community.
Response: The employee housing is proposed to be phased with the
development of the new residence.
s. Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs.
.......-..
Response: The GMQS process requires a provision
housing to be provided with new development,
development has been determined to generate the need
employees within the community.
Staff and the Planning commission recommend approval of the housing
mitigation package to City Council.
of affordable
because such
for additional
....'.,"'
Exhibit 0
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING A RESIDENTIAL GMQS SCORE OF 34.4 POINTS
FOR ONE NEW FREE MARKET DWELLING UNIT AND RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND GMQS
EXEMPTION FOR AN AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT FOR THE BILLINGS
APPLICATION WHICH IS LOCATED AT 981, 985 AND 995 KING STREET
(ALSO lQiOWN AS TllE ASTOR SUBDIVISION)
Resolution No. 93-~1
WHEREAS, C.L. Astor and Company and Carla Billings,
represented by sunny Vann, submitted an application for a
residential Growth Management allocation including subdivision and
PUD in order to resubdivide the Astor Subdivision and create one
new parcel to contain a free market dwelling unit within the R-6
zone district; and
WHEREAS, this is the only application seeking a residential
Growth Management allocation for the 1993 competition; and
WHEREAS, Section 24-7-903(B) (4) of the Aspen Municipal Code
allows a reduction in the minimum lot area of a sUbdivision under
the Planned unit Development regulations. The Planning commission
has found that the applicant's request to reduce the minimum lot
area requirements complies with the provisions of the Code and
recommends approval of this PUD variance to city council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the
applicant's request complies with the Subdivision criteria of
section 24-7-1004(C) to create one new parcel and the Affordable
Housing unit requirements of section 24-8-104(C) (1) (c) of the Code
and recommends approval of this request to City Council; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to, and the commission accepted
the Planning Office recommended GMP score of 34.4 points and found
that the minimum category thresholds have been met, allowing City
Council to award one residential free market allocation to the
project; and
WHEREAS, the planning and Zoning commission considered the
applicant's request at a duly noticed public hearing on January 4,
1994 at Which time the Commission voted 4-2 to approve the request
with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That it does hereby recommend the allocation of one residential
GMQS allotment, Subdivision, Planned unit Development and an
Affordable Housing Unit for the Billing project subject to the
following conditions:
Resolution #93-__
paqe 2
1. The applicant shall place the following note on the final
plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access
easement. No road cut off King Street is permitted for
Lot 1."
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3.
The applicant shall
agreement to the City
Final Plat.
submit a sidewalk, curb and gutter
Engineer, prior to recordation of the
4. A housing mitigation program for 1.75 employees must be
approved by city Council and appropriate deed restrictions or
payments must be completed, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
5. The right-of-way width to be granted by the applicant shall
be resolved, prior to recordation of the Final Plat.
6.
The name of
Subdivision, as
the City.
the subdivision shall remain the Astor
there is already a Billings Subdivision within
7. The applicant shall submit a Final Plat and SUbdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of City Council review, for review
and approval by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Planning
Office.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
9. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to section
24-7-903 (B) (4) because the total lot area of all lots within
the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area requirements for
the zone district.
10.
The applicant
improving the
easement.
shall pay their fair share of paving. and
access easement with all lots which use this
~.,.-.
,-""~,
Resolution 193-
Page 3 -
APPROVED by the commission at its regular meeting on January
4, 1994.
Attest:
Planning and Zoning commission:
.~~L
Chair
Jan . Carney, I
Deputy City Cl' It
~..o.apa.g.q..billing.
Exhibit e
January 21, ~994
Mayor John Bennett
Members of the Aspen City Council
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
Dear Mayor Bennett and Council Members,
On January 19, most of the homeowners from the King street
neighborhood gathered together to discuss the possible impacts of
the Billings Subdivision and GMQS application. Mary Lackner from
the Planning Office was present at our meeting in City Hall to
explain the pending application and the City Zoning Code.
After reviewing several positions the neighbors listed below
unanimously supported a motion asking City council to deny Mrs.
Billings' application for SUbdivision and GMQS allocation. The
primary reason for our opposition is that the proposed density is
not consistent with the immediate neighborhood.
The three block area adjacent to Mrs. Billings property is zoned
either R-1S or R-15A. The applicants' property was rezoned R-6 in
1978, and subdivided into three 15,000 sq. ft. lots at that time.
In exchange for this rezoning, 3 units were deed restricted for
employee housing. The 1978 subdivision created a density that was
consistent with the neighborhood. The present application is
proposing a greater density than is allowed for the rest of the
three block area.
A majority of the homes in this area are owned and occupied by
families working in Aspen. The neighbors debated at length whether
to request R-6 zoning for the whole area and to reap the same
build-out potential as Mrs. Billings. We decided that it was more
important to preserve our medium density neighborhood than to sell
out to the highest dollar and have an increase of larger homes
owned by non-residents.
As a neighborhood, we have two main concerns regarding the Billings
proposal.
1. If Council approves this application, our neighborhood will be
adversely affected as a result of the aforementioned spot zoning
and we will suffer from the increased density allowed by the R-6
zoning, which would permit a 4000+ sq.ft. house with an accessory.
unit.
2. Mrs. Billings would be able to return to City council in the
future and request an additional subdivision, developing a total
of nine or ten units on her 45,000 sq. ft. of land. This density is
far in excess to the surrounding R-15 and R-15A neighborhood
zoning; a scale of development not consistent with the neighborhood
and unacceptable to all of us.
Please do not force this type and magnitude of development, that
has ruined other neighborhoods, down our throats. We are trying to
preserve our Aspen neighborhood as a living, working community; and
we need your help.
We ask you to halt this unwanted, unnecessary growth by denying the
Billings subdivision application and precluding future subdivision
and over-development of this property.
Thank you for your
~--
Ralph Braden
977 Qfee, St eet
/ i. /'
consideration and assistance.
~
oremus, Representing
Candreia Family
930 King Street
To:fL'
975 King street
Ja qu lyn ~&~
980 ing street
Chuck and Brice Maple
927 Gibson Avenue
James Mickey
931 Gibson Ave.
1La.... ...),"-",-~Q..:>","
Ken Owen
115 .Neale.stree~
~!L~1~ I
Jeffery Sh " I
113 & 1 7 ~al Street
Lana Trettin
17 Queen Street
i / ~ \
'../ --:r
FEBRUARY 28, 1994
Mayor John Bennett
Members of Aspen City Council
city Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
MAA-2
. /; :
- ------.,j l.-/ :
--
Dear Mayor Bennett and Council Members,
The homeowners in the King street neighborhood have reached an
agreement with Ms. Billings and now support her GMQS and
subdivision applications. We request the City Council add two
conditions of approval to Ordinance #4, 1994.
1. We request city Council add as a condition of approval a
prohibition on any future additional subdivision in the Astor
Subdivision resulting in any additional lots.
2. The electric utility line located in the proposed Lot 1 be
relocated and placed underground at the developer's expense.
with these conditions the impacts of the application on the
neighborhood have been minimized. The benefits of adding one
affordable housing unit and preserving the two existing units on
the present Lot 1 outweigh any negative impacts of one additional
free market unit.
The undersigned neighbors of Ms. Billings request your support for
Ordinance #4, 1994, and Resolution #8, 1994. Thank you.
Ralph Braden
97~ Street
T6m~
975 ~treet
John Doremus, Rep~esenting
Joe Candreia Family!
930 King street J
~-~7J~
Jacquelyn Kasabach
980 King Street
Chuck and Brice Maple
9~ Gibson Avenue
)- a~-
Ken Owen
115 Neale street
Lana Trettin
17 Queen Street
-
---",
'DOREMUS
caC~~~~
FEB 2 5
February 22, 1994
Ms. Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mary:
As you may know, I was party to a letter written to the City Council recently regarding the
pending Carla Billings lot split application in the City. I am representing the Joseph Candreia
Estate in this matter with respect to its property located at the comer of Neal Avenue and King
Street.
Having discussed this matter further with the Applicants representative, Sunny Vann, I wish to
modify my view on this matter. I now feel that the current application is an appropriate
development in the neighborhood and should be approved. I would, however, offer one
suggestion, which I feel the rest of the neighborhood would also find acceptable, that is:
prohibition against further subdivision.
I hope you find this helpful in your deliberations.
Sinc~
John Doremus, agent for the Joseph Candreia Estate
616 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303/925-6866
Facsimile: 303/925-5843
OImlNANLE NO. ~ (S[JUES Of 19!H)
AN UIWINANCE Of Tltl:: CITY OF A~:jI'~N
~MANTING ljMQS EXl::MI'TION FON THl:: CON-
STlWCTION lJF (JNl:: AfFORIlAlJl.E HOU:5INCi
UNIT fOR THE IIU.UN(iS RESIOENTlAI. GMQS
PROJi':CL SIJIlDIVISION AI'I'j(OVAL TO CRE.
ATE A NEW UH IN TilE ASTOR SUllnlVISION,
PUD TO VARY THE MINtMUM un AHEA
REQUINl::Mt:N"J" Of TIlE NEWI.Y CHI:::ATEIJ
PARC!::I.. AND (iRANlINti V!-.:.5Tl::1l KIGIlT.::i
WK A I'EKIO() m TllKE!:: YEARS f(J}( HIE
UEV!::LUI'MENT LOCAn:1l AT 91S1. 91:15, AND
995 KING STHEl::T WIUCIIIS ALSO KNOWN AS
TII~ ASTUH .:sUlmlVISION
WIIl:HlAS. IlutH',lI.1 III Sec\IIIIIS.H-8-
W4(C)(I)(c) 01 the Aspell MUllh:lpal CuJe,
Cit)' Cuunctl lDi.)' exempt L1eed testrlcled
..Uotl..Iable huush\1I ulllh lrom Gruwlh Mi.n-
;awemenl Quut. S)'stem (GMQS) CIIIIII)eIllIOIl;
.n"
WIII.::REAS, punulUltlo Secllon 24-1-1U04(C)
01 the Aspell Munlclpi.l Code, CII)' Cuuncll
wranls IInal subdlvlslun allproYilI; and
Wm:K~, vunuanl 10 Section 24-1.903 01
the Aspen Municipal Cude, CIt)' Council
jl"Ulls Itllill approval lur Planned Unit Devel.
opmenl Applications: and
WIIEREAS. punu.uu 10 Section 24+201 of
the Aspen Munldp4li Cude. City Council may
jl"ant vesling ul development r1llhllO lor a slle
Ipecllh: development pl4n lor. period 01
three years frOIll Ihe dale ul lInal develop-
menl pliUI ipprov41; and
WIIEHI::AS. Col. ASlur Ind Company and
Mrs. C.ula HiIllnlls (-Applicalu-), ,Ii relne-
senlet.l b)' SUlIny ....alllI. submltlc!'tJ an appllca-
11011 10 Ihe Plannillll Olllce, re1lue:;;Unll Subdl-
Vistllll, PilI). line reshhmtlal GMQS illlutlll~nt
alltl tiMtlS 1::1It:Ulllllull tu n:illblllvid~ Iht:
Alilur SubdlvllilulI 10 neatc olle Ilew l)ilrcel
iIInd pruvlde une on-sile allordable dwellillli
unit; and
WHERI:'.AS, the Aslor Subdivision Is zoned R-
6 and affurdable buuJioinwls permitted use In
this zone district: and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zonlnw Com.
mllSlun considered the applicant's reque5t ;at
a public hearing un Jillluilr)' 4, 1994, ami
appruvcJ IIrowth milllallemenl scurlllg alld
recummcnded approvallur Ihe SubdivlslulI,
PUU and GMCJS EXemptlulI a.5 uulllned In
I'lallnlllY and Zoninll CUlllmlssloll Re:>olulillll
9:1.:14; and
WUI::K~. Ihe Commlsslun voted 6.{t tu rec-
ommend approval to Cily Council lor the
GMQS Exemplloll lor Ihe development 01 one
deed restrlcled allorJable hOll.5inll unit 10 the
C..h:YUry 2 hlCUllle level; and
WIlEHI::AS. the CUlllnl15sluII vOled 4-2 10 rec.
omlnenJ allprov.l to Clly Councillor Ihe pro-
pOlied 5ubdivi5iuII illld I'UD. subject 10 the
cOlldlllonlO nuted 1lll'I.llnlllW and Zuninll COIR-
mluloll tleliolulhm 933.1: alld
NOW, THEREFORE. liE IT ORDAINI::O BY
TIll:: CITY COUNCil Of TilE CITY Qt' ASI'EN.
COtoRAOO:
Seclion I; That iI doeli hereby srant GMQS
Ellemj)tion lor all AUordable Housing unih to
be local~d un Ihe newly crealed I.ut I ul the
ASlor Subdivision pursuallt 10 Section 24.1:1-
104(C)(I)(c) 01 lhe Alilleu Munidval Code.
So:cllonl: Tho: conditiollS ul appruval which
aplliy 10 Ihls GMQS u.elllptlOIl are:
I. The u.....lIer shall suhmil appropriate deeu
reSlrlcllunli lor a one bedroom. Catellory 2
aUordable houSllllI unll 10 Ih~ Alij)en/I'Ukin
County ltuusiulI Aulhuril)' lur approval, Vrior
10 issuance ul an)' buildlllll; permits. UIJOI1
appruval by Ihe Iluu:;illll; Aulhorily. the
Owner ih..1l record the deed re:;lricliullJio wilh
tho: Pitkin CuulIty Clefk atltl Hecorder's Ollice.
2. I'rlur lu ISJiouall":O: ul ,my blliltllllll perluits
IUllhe vrollerty. a cupy ul the recurded deed
relitllclloll5 lur Iho: new dwdtlllll Ilnih IIlUlit
be lurw;uded tu the I'I;lIlllinW DUlce.
3. All material relJrelienl..Uolls made by Ihe
applic;antlnlhe alljllkallon ami durilllll-lubho;
meelillllS with Ihe 1'I,>IIIIillll alld lllllllllil Cum.
milisiulI ,"'11 Clly Cuuncil shall he ,,:ullsltlo:red
comlUlUlIli 01 "PIHOV;.a1. lIuh::>li alllemh:tlllY
other cOllliitiOllli.
Sectiull J: PUhuanl 10 Sectiun ~-I.1.IOO4(l:)
and Secllutl 24.7.!HJJ 01 the Municipal Codo:,
CIt)' Council does hereby Krint Iho: ippUcanl
Subdivision iIond Planned Unil Oevo:lopmelll
ilPlJrovalliublecllu tho: 101l0wil111 cOllditiuns:
I. Thc iIoppllcant shall place the 10llowIIIII
nole on the IInal pIal: "tul I lihall acceSli the
~.areel ~c:rou th,: ellislillll acress easeme,nt
"^,
. 3. The alJpllcant shall conlitruct a sidewalk
aJonlllhe Alilul Subdlvllilun ;\li It ItUlIlli KUlIl
SUccI at tho: lime I.ot I is dt'velulled_ A nlfb
and Iilulh:r alllreeRlenl shall l.oe ellecuh:d ilud
recortkd. prior 10 lecordallun ullhe Fill..II'I...1
4. The ri~hl~j.way wluth 10 be ~rallled by
the applicant 5hall be re50lved, pnor to sec-
ond readillW b)' Clly CuuncIl.
5 The namt:l 01 the suudivislon ihall relUil.in
th~ Aslor Subdlvisioll. ,a there is alrea.dy a
BiUinlls 5ubdivi~ion wilhin the City. ..
6. The apvlicanl sh..1I submit il Fmal Plat
and SubdiviSlonll'UI> Allreemellt w.l.'un 11m
days 01 City Council revle...... lur review iIoud
ilpproval by the Cit)' AUurlley. Clly ElI~lneer.
and 1'lallllillwOllll,'e.
1. The Filial 1)1..1 shall Include a note sllee\-
Iylnw Ihilt lilt! minimum lul .rea 01 Lut I has
bet:ln varied lIursuanl 10 50:1.:1IUII 2-1.7-
900(8)(4) The tulallol ..rea 01 alllulS wlllllll
Ihe liubi.livisllln t'xceo:tJs the Ill1lllmUIII lut iireil
requllemenb lur Ihe .toile dililtlcl.
8. The applicant lihall Ilay Ihelr fair 5hare 01
pavillll and illlprovillK the access eaSi::lIIelll
with alllulli whkh use Illlli easement.
Seetlun 4: I'unuallt tu Section 2'Hi-207 01
the MUlllcipal Codt:l, City CuulIcil doeli hereby
aranl Ihe applicant ve:>ted rllthlJio_lor the
Billinws/Aslor SubdiviS,lOn Slle speclhc t1evd.
ollmenl plan ali lutluws: . .
I. The rit/.hlli Itralltetl lJy the site Sllenhc
develolllReul pi.... oipprovell lJy th~li OHh.
nance shall remain ve:>leu lor Ihrei:: (:I) years
IrolR Ihe dale 01 Jinal oidOlllioll sjlet.:lht'd
beluw. Huwever, any lailute 10 .abide liy Ihe
lerlll:; alld o;onlliliullli ..llelltlillll lu Iillli
approval sli...'.' resul~ UI Jurlt'ilure 01 said Vl::st.
ed propert)' 1I1ilh1S. faIlure In lundy iilUJ Prol)-
elly re..:ord all "lOllS and a.lilreeml::llls il ~l'e':l.
lied herein or In the MlIlllClpoil Cllue shall _ill~u
resull ill Ihe lorlellure"j siud ve~led ll~hb
2. The ilPllroval llranled hereby shall ue
subject 10 ..II rlt/.hlS 01 reletl::udulII anti IlUh.
clal review.
3. NOlhillW ill the apllfl>vals provided uy this
Ordinanct: shOll! ClIenl[11 the liile spet.:lIH;
development plan from ~uI.oSt(lut:lIt revll::WS
alld/or alJjUov.ls rcqu.red b)' Ihlli Ordlll..llce
or the lIeneral ruleli, reKulallons or urd..
nances ollhe City provided thai liu..:h reVIews
01 illlpruvals art nol illCUllliiJiolt'lll with Ille
ilppruvillwranled and veslt:d hetell!.
4. Tht: estaulishment herei" 01 iI vested
properly rit/.htlihallllut predu!le the allph..:a-
llull 01 ordinances or re!lulallons which iire
I:ent'ral in nalure and ilre applicable to ...II
plujletlies sulllect to laud tlst: rellul..l.on by
Ihe Cit)' ul Aspen, llldmlHlII. hul nut lilfill~U
10. buildinlil. Ore. plumUinll, e1eclrIC..1 alHl
nledl..nical codes Iii IIIlS rell.ard. oiS a cumll.
Iiu.. "I Ihis 5ile development ilppruval. lilt
develllilcr :;hall ilhidt by allY iilld,"'U such
buitJinll.. lire, plumhinlt. eleclucal ..lItl
med,iluic.11 cudes. Ullh::SS ..u eKelllpllUllthcte.
IrulIIls KriUlt"tl in wlllmg
Seclion 5: .rile City Cletk shilll cause nOlice
uf 111110 Oruillillnco: W lie pulJhshed III . !lews.
pal)t'r ollile"eral clrculallull WllllllI Ihe Clly 111
AlOile", IIU later thall loutlcell (I,-I} u..)'s Jul.
lu.....iuylitlill OillilflllUlI lIi::rell!. .:sul'h nOII..:e
shOll1 be y1veu III Ihe lolluwlnylolm:
NUllce Is hereb)' wlven lu the lIeneral public
uf the ilPlIroval ul a lilte Ipeclllc development
pliill, and Ihe creation ul .a vesled l)fopc'l)'
rlllht Iluuua.11 tu Title 24, Arllde oli, Cul-
oradu KevlJioced Statutes, perlalnlnwlo the 101-
luwinw descrlbeJ Ilropetty:
The plojlerty shall ue described In the
nutlce and a.ppendt'd lu 14111 nyllcce.
Scectlun 6: A puullc he..r1nll 011 the OrJI-
nancc lihilll be helu on Ihe 28 da)' uf Milrcll
1994411 S:OU P.M. In the City Cuullell Cham.
betS, Aspen Cll)' Halt, ASpt'lI, Colorado. fU-
h:en (15) days flnor 10 Iln: he.arlilK a flubiic
nollce 01 the hearillll shall be jlubllshed In ill
newspa.fler of lIelleral drcula.llull within the
Clt)' ul As~,
II'HRODUCED. REAO ANI> OHDEREO PUB-
I.ISII!-:ll Oil Ilrovlded by law. by tht' Clt)' Coun-
cil 01 the Clly ul Alipen 011 Ihe 28 day ul
i"ebruilry, Hj~-I.
John lieillleU, Mayor
ATIEST, Killhryn S. Kudl. CIt)' l:lt:rk
I'ul.olbhed III Tltce A",pl::lI Times March 4,
19~4.
,-~,
."
c
~
-
-.
n
Z
o
r+
-.
n
(1)
~
'"
S
S-
..."
;,;>
S
;0.
';;!
...
,..
~
'"
.0"
Exhibit r
-
""
:e
.
:;l
'"
,.
~
1
~
;;;
~
....
'"
n
c
"
~
DOREMUS
(BCOMPANY
REALTORS@
FEB 2 5
February 22, 1994
Ms. Mary Lackner
AspenlPitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mary:
As you may know, I was party to a letter written to the City Council recently regarding the
pending Carla Billings lot split application in the City. I am representing the Joseph Candreia
Estate in this matter with respect to its property located at the corner of Neal Avenue and King
Street.
Having discussed this matter further with the Applicants representative, Sunny Vann, I wish to
modify my view on this matter. I now feel that the current application is an appropriate
development in the neighborhood and should be approved. I would, however, offer one
suggestion, which I feel the rest of the neighborhood would also find acceptable, that is:
prohibition against further subdivision.
I hope you find this helpful in your deliberations.
Sinc~
John Doremus, agent for the Joseph Candreia Estate
616 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303/925-6866
Facsimile: 303/925-5843
('""'
"-'
~C/1~'
FEBRUARY 28, 1994
Mayor John Bennett
Members of Aspen City Council
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
MAR-2
--,~..jL;""/'
~'_._._~
Dear Mayor Bennett and Council Members,
The homeowners in the King street neighborhood have reached an
agreement with Ms. Billings and now support her GMQS and
subdivision applications. We request the City Council add two
conditions of approval to Ordinance #4, 1994.
1. We request city council add as a condition of approval a
prohibition on any future additional subdivision in the Astor
Subdivision resulting in any additional lots.
2. The electric utility line located in the proposed Lot 1 be
relocated and placed underground at the developer's expense.
with these conditions the impacts of the application on the
neighborhood have been minimized. The benefits of adding one
affordable housing unit and preserving the two existing units on
the present Lot 1 outweigh any negative impacts of one additional
free market unit.
The undersigned neighbors of Ms. Billings request your support for
Ordinance #4, 1994, and Resolution #8, 1994. Thank you.
Ralph Braden
97~ Street
T6m~
975 ~treet
John Doremus, Represent~ng
Joe candreia Family^"
930 King stree.t ../~G~
~-- ~.~;:;I:/~
..
Jacquelyn Kasabach
980 King Street
Chuck and Brice Maple
927 Gibson Avenue
/~~
Ken Owen
115 Neale Street
James Mickey
931.__GibSOno enu~-...r1
Je8fs, /
1l;f~r1;7 e Street !
Lana Trettin
17 Queen Street
,~.
)
,-"
January 21, 1994
Mayor John Bennett
Members of the Aspen City council
city Hall
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
Dear Mayor Bennett and Council Members,
On January 19, most of the homeowners from the King street
neighborhood gathered together to discuss the possible impacts of
the Billings Subdivision and GMQS application. Mary Lackner from
the Planning Office was present at our meeting in City Hall to
explain the pending application and the city Zoning Code.
After reviewing several positions the neighbors listed below
unanimously supported a motion aSking city council to deny Mrs.
Billings' application for Subdivision and GMQS allocation. The
primary reason for our opposition is that the proposed density is
not consistent with the immediate neighborhood.
The three block area adjacent to Mrs. Billings property is zoned
either R-15 or R-15A. The applicants' property was rezoned R-6 in
1978, and subdivided into three 15,000 sq. ft. lots at that time.
In exchange for this rezoning, 3 units were deed restricted for
employee housing. The 1978 subdivision created a density that was
consistent with the neighborhood. The present application is
proposing a greater density than is allowed for the rest of the
three block area.
A majority of the homes in this area are owned and occupied by
families working in Aspen. The neighbors debated at length whether
to request R-6 zoning for the whole area and to reap the same
build-out potential as Mrs. Billings. We decided that it was more
important to preserve our medium density neighborhood than to sell
out to the highest dollar and have an increase of larger homes
owned by non-residents.
As a neighborhood, we have two main concerns regarding the Billings
proposal.
1. If Council approves this application, our neighborhood will be
adversely affected as a result of the aforementioned spot zoning
and we will suffer from the increased density allowed by the R-6
zoning, which would permit a 4000+ sq. ft. house with an accessory
unit.
2. Mrs. Billings would be able to return to City council in the
future and request an additional sUbdivision, developing a total
of nine or ten units on her 45,000 sq.ft. of land. This density is
far in excess to the surrounding R-15 and R-15A neighborhood
zoning; a scale of development not consistent with the neighborhood
and unacceptable to all of us.
r"
"-'"
"
" "
Please do not force this type and magnitude of development, that
has ruined other neighborhoods, down our throats. We are trying to
preserve our Aspen neighborhood as a living, working community; and
we need your help.
We ask you to halt this unwanted, unnecessary growth by denying the
Billings subdivision application and precluding future subdivision
and over-development of this property.
Thank you for your
~..
Ralph Braden
977 Q ee st eet
consideration and assistance.
-
~
oremus, Representing
Candreia Family
930 King street
TO~sR
975 King st::tE:!et
~
Ja qu lyn asabach
ing street
Chuck and Brice Maple
927 Gibson Avenue
James Mickey
931 Gibson Ave.
ILtL .j........"-~
Ken Owen
115,Neale,stree~
Jef(2:;{1,'-] l
113 '~rr'; ~l~ street
Lana Trettin
17 Queen street
......
/'
Jacquelyn Kasabach
980 King street
c~JJ!t:1!Ple
92. ~qGibso~~en/
y~ PhVPj'
6Tames Mickey
V931 Gibson Ave.
/'
Ken Owen
115 Neale. stree~
C~/ JL~l~l
Jeffery Sh' ~
113 & 1 7 N' al . street
Lana Trettin
17 Queen street
--""-~~-->-'" -,~.,------~,-
~
f"",
\wi
......
".-;
THOMAS D. ISAAC
975 KING STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303)920-2199
January 3, 1994
Bruce Kerr, chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Dear Mr. Kerr and Commissioners,
I am writing to you
Application of c. L.
application since it
neighborhood that is
working residents. A
economic viability of
the street.
Since the addition of this duplex will have little impact on the
city outside the immediate neighborhood, I will address the site
impacts that should be addressed by the developer.
in regards to the Growth Management Quota
Astor & Co. I am not in favor of this
will introduce large expensive homes into a
almost exclusively inhabited by full-time,
4000 square foot development threatens the
the older single family and duplex homes on
1. Driveway. The City of Aspen Code specifies that all dr~veways
serving more than three homes be brought up to street status.
This drive will be serving four duplexes and should be paved and
improved at the expense of che applicant.
2. Development Site Plan. No site plan has
will be the access to the driveway, where
provisions will be made for trash, ect.?
3. utilities. My electric and natural gas utility access lines
are located in the proposed Lot 1. I request the applicant
relocate these services underground at their expense.
4. Trash Collection. I have placed my trash cans at the northeast
corner of the proposed Lot 1 at the ins~stence of I1rs Billlngs. I
request acceptabl.e provisions be made for future trash collection
at this time.
5. Future Deveopment. What
development of Lot 4?
6. Zoning. The applicant had this property rezoned to R-6 in 1980
and now wishes to take advantage of the increased density. I
request my property be zoned R-6, the same as my neighbor.
been offered. What
is the parking, what
are
the
plans
and
potential
The GMQS and subdivision application is vague on specific details
of it's future development. I have pointed out some of the
impacts this application will have on the neighborhood. The
applicant should be held responsible for mitigating these impacts
before the application is approved.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom --;:s~~ 9--
/.---
.
c
:)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Amy Margerum, city Manager
Diane Moore, City Planning Director(01\
Mary Lackner, Planner
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
February 28, 1994
RE:
Adoption of Resolution #8, Awarding the Res idential
Allocation for the 1993 Growth Management Quota system
Competition
==================================================================
SUMMARY: Growth Management allocations are granted through
resolution adoption by City Council. Attached is Resolution #8
for your consideration and adoption. There was only one growth
management application for the 1993 residential competition.
The Planning and Zoning
application for one residence
street and scored the project
minimum threshold established
commission reviewed the Billings
to be an infill development on King
34.4 points. This exceeds the 33.6
by the Municipal Code.
STAFF DISCUSSION: The staff review for the Billings application
is a separate action item for Council, which is also being reviewed
at tonight's meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends adoption of this
allotment resolution.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #8 (Series 1994)."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
5/0
~
c
2J
RESOLUTION NO.
(series of 199411
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
GRANTING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT FOR THE 1993
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM COMPETITION
WHEREAS, Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code
sets forth a Growth Management Quota System governing new
development within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8-103 (A) (2) of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code, 20 residential dwelling units are available
for development on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, of the 20 residential dwelling units established as
a minimum allotment, three have been used from the 1993 quota
through exemptions as allowed by Article 8, leaving 17 dwelling
units available for competition; and
WHEREAS,
the
Billings
Residential . Growth
Management
application request for one residential allocation was the only
application received for the 1993 competition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission did evaluate and
score the development application at a duly noticed public hearing
on January 4, 1994, as required by Section 8-106(D) of Chapter 24
of the Aspen Municipal Code: and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission determined that
the Billings application successfully met the minimum thresholds
for individual and combined score categories and scored the project
at 34.4 points; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission has recommended
that the Billings project be allocated one residential development
.. -.,
-
.......
o
Resolution #
Page 2
(1994)
allotment; and
WHEREAS, no challenges to the Planning and Zoning commission's
scoring have been submitted to the City Council as allowed under
Section 8-106(1) of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
section 1: In accordance with Section 8-106(J) of Chapter 24
of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen
does hereby grant to the Billings project one residential dwelling
unit growth management allocation from the 1993 Residential Growth
Management Quota System.
Section 2: In accordance with Section 8-108 of Chapter 24 of
the Aspen Municipal Code, the development allotment as awarded
herein shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the
date of approval of a site specific development plan for the
project as identified herein, unless a building permit is obtained
and the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or
extension to the approval is obtained.
Dated:
, 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify
that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution
adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado at a
meeting held on , 1994.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
c
""
-......,I
\~b
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City council
FROM:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Diane Moore, City Planning Directo~
Mary Lackner, Planner
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
February 28, 1994
RE:
Billings Subdivision/PUD, GMQS Exemption and Vested
Rights - First Reading of Ordinance 4, Series 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning
Office recommend approval of the Subdivision to create a 9,130
sq. ft. parcel, PUD to vary the minimum lot area requirement, GMQS
Exemption for an on-site affordable dwelling unit, and for vested
property rights. The Billings Residential GMQS application was
awarded 34.4 points in the residential GMQS competition by the
Planning Commission on January 4, 1994.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council considered the applicant's
request at first reading on February 14, 1994, and the request was
tabled to tonight's meeting due to neighborhood comments. Staff
has responded to these conqerns in the current issues section of
this memo. city Council approved the Astor Subdivision in 1980.
This is a three lot subdivision and each lot is improved with a
duplex unit.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mrs. Carla Billings (the
applicant) seeks a residential GMQS allocation for one free-market
dwelling unit to be located on a newly created parcel within the
Astor Subdivision. The applicant is also proposing an affordable
dwelling unit on the new lot as required by section 24-8-
104(C) (1) (c) of the Municipal Code. This is the only residential
GMQS application for the 1993 competition. Please refer to the
complete application package, Exhibit "A".
The project is located at 981, 985, and 995 King Street, which
includes Lots 1-3 of the Astor SUbdivision, and contains 45,280
sq. ft. of lot area. This subdivision is zoned R-6.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached in Exhibit
"B" of this memorandum.
CURRENT ISSUES: At the February 14, 1994 meeting, a neighborhood
letter was distributed to city Council which identifies some
concern of the neighbors regarding this application. Under the
existing Lot 1 configuration (prior to this subdivision request)
the applicant would have the ability to develop another single
family residence (a GMQS allotment is required) with the required
c
:)
affordable housing mitigation. This could be accomplished without
subdividing the parcel. The applicant, however, has requested a
resubdivision of the Astor Subdivision and a request for one
residential allotment.
The letter from the adjacent neighbors suggests that the applicant
could return in the future and request further subdivision of the
Astor Subdivision. The applicant would first be required to
receive additional residential allotments prior to any subdivision
approval and that review would be subject to the provisions of the
Code at the time of the review.
The applicant's proposal is consistent with the GMQS requirements
established within the current land use code. This application has
competed for the 1993 residential allotment and it has been
reviewed and scored in accordance with our current GMQS
regulations.
Staff is in the process of amending the Growth Management Quota
system regulations based on the recommendations contained within
the Aspen Area Community Plan for the 1994 GMQS competition. We
are presently discussing the amended language and policy
considerations with the City and County Planning and Zoning
commissions.
One of the many items under consideration for the revised GMQS
regulation is the Growth Action Plan recommendation that all new
subdivisions house 60% of the employees generated by the
development, as compared to the existing requirement of 35%. As
the proposed GMQS language has not been finalized or adopted by
Council, this proposal mayor may not be consistent with what is
finally adopted. Staff believes that it would be unfair to apply
new standards prematurely when an applicant has applied under
existing (1993) regulations. Staff did not anticipate the
completition of the GMQS revision prior to the 1994 competition.
staff discussion of the Subdivision, PUD, and GMQS Exemption review
criteria is contained in Exhibit "C". Staff and the Commission
believe that this proposal is consistent with the requirements of
the Municipal Code.
section 24-6-207 dictates the process and ordinance language
requirements for establishing vested rights for three years.
Planning and Zoning commission resolution of approval is attached
for your reference in Exhibit "D".
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval of the Billings Subdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption and
Vested Rights, subject to the fOllowing conditions:
2
c
"'""
',J'
1. The applicant shall place the following note on the final
plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access
easement. No road cut off King street is permitted for
Lot 1."
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3. The applicant shall submit a sidewalk, curb and gutter
agreement to the City Engineer, prior to recordation of the
Final Plat.
4 . A housing mitigation program for 1.75 employees must be
approved by City Council and appropriate deed restrictions
must be completed, prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. The right-of-way width to be granted by the applicant shall
be resolved, prior to second reading by Council.
6. The name of the subdivision shall remain the Astor
Subdivision, as there is already a Billings Subdivision within
the city.
7. The applicant shall submit a Final Plat and SUbdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of City Council review, for review
and approval by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Planning
Office.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
9. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to section
24-7-903(B) (4). The total lot area of all lots within the
subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area requirements for the
zone district.
10.
The applicant
improving the
easement.
shall
access
pay their fair share of paving and
easement with all lots which use this
Conditions 3 and 4 have been changed in the Ordinance as follows:
3. The applicant shall construct a sidewalk along the Astor
Subdivision as it fronts King Street at the time Lot 1 is
developed. A curb and gutter agreement shall be executed and
recorded, prior to recordation of the Final Plat.
3
/r"
...."'"
:)
4. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions for a one
bedroom, Category 2 affordable housing unit to the
Aspen/Pitkin county Housing Authority for approval, prior to
issuance of any building permits. Upon approval by the
Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed
restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder I s
Office.
Prior to issuance of any building permits for the property,
a copy of the recorded deed restrictions for the new dwelling
units must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
All material representations made by
application and during public meetings
zoning commission and City Council
conditions of approval, unless amended
the applicant in the
with the Planning and
shall be considered
by other conditions.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have first reading of Ordinance ,
1994 for approval for approval of the Billings SUbdivision, PUD,
GMQS Exemption and Vested Rights as discussed in the city Council
memorandum dated February 28, 1994."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 4, Series 1994
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Package
"B" - Referral Comments (ACSD, City Engineer, Housing Office)
"C" - Code Review criteria (Subdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption)
"D" - Planning and Zoning commission Resolution
"E" - Neighborhood letter
4
c
~
Exhibit B
:Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation 1Jist1rict
565 North Mill Street .
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DEe \ 7 ;S0J
Tele. (303) 925-3601
FAX #(303) 925,2531- ---- .
Sy Kelly - Chairman
John~ Snyder-Treaa
Louis Popish - Secy.
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, M,
December 15. 1993
Mary Lackner
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Billings Property GMQS
Dear Mary:
A~ the present time
has sufficient line
de'.;elooment. There
Oklahoma Fiats area
from c8nnection fee
deve I opmen t.
the Aspen ConsQlidated Sanitation District
and treatme~t capacity to serve this
are downstream line constraints in the
that we are eliminating with funds generated
surcharges. which would be applied to this
As usual service is
District's Rules and
District office. Once
can be issued through
connection fees.
contingent upon compliance with t~e
Regulations. which are en file at the
detailed plans are available a tap permit
our office which wi II estimate the total
Please call if you have any questions.
Si ncere 1 Y..
~~~";;>''''''''b
Bruce Matherly
Di5t~ict Manager
c
:)
'-- ...... '" -'. ,
MEMORAt'IDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer (lc-t:-
Date: December 27, 1993
Re: Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD, and GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Storm Runoff - For the GMQS scoring, the application meets the minimum standards
of the Municipal Code.
This application is for a resubdivision of the Astor Subdivision which was approved
by the City Council on May 13, 1980. The storm runoff requirements of Section 24-7-
1004.C.4.f should have been applied to development on the parcels at that time. In any
event, storm runoff mitigation in accordance with the Code should be required for future
development on any and each of the proposed four lots. Additionally, we would like to
add the requirement that the development plans provide, during construction, for storm
runoff from soils exposed by excavation to be maintained on site and not released to the
Roaring Fork River or public rights-of-way.
2. Trash Storage - The final development plans for each parcel shall indicate on-site trash
storage locations.
3. Utilities - Any new transformers or utility pedestals must be located on easements on
the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way.
4. Ri~t-of-way Width - The right-of-way widths of King Street were created when the
abutting properties were in the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. The City Engineering
Department records are incomplete concerning the right-of-way widths, but it appears from
the annexation map (The Smuggler Enclave Annexation, Drawing No. 540-44) that the
width varies and may be as narrow as 35 feet or less.
Section 24-7-1004.C.4.a(3) requires a right-of-way width of 60 feet for a local street
and 80 feet for a collector. (This has generally been interpreted to apply as 75 feet since
that is the typical dimension for the right-of-way widths in the historical platting of Aspen.)
King Street is at present a one-way street. There is no master plan for future right-
of-way widths for Aspen streets or for the eventual two-waying of King Street. However,
in the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan (Ped Plan), King Street is indicated
c
:)
both as a primary pedestrian route and as an off-road trail bikeway route. This should
be considered in determining desirable future right-of-way width. An additional
consideration in right-of-way width and use design is the need or plan for on-street
parking.
We recommend that the right-of-way width be enlarged to 60 feet and that
approximately 12.5 feet of right-of-way width be dedicated by the applicant. If additional
right-of-way width is desired, it is typical to acquire right-of-way dedication at the time of
subdivision. The are a great number of City land use applications which have provided
for right-of-way dedication in the past.
The breakdown on right-of-way use dimensions is as follows:
2 sidewalks at 5' wide . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10'
2 vehicle travel lanes at 12' wide ....... 24'
2 "lanes" of on-street parking at 8' ...... 16'
2 buffer spaces at 2' wide ............. 4'
1 bicvcle lane at 6' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6'
Total .......................... 60'
As can be seen, this layout does not provide for the typical West End buffer spaces
between property line and sidewalk (7.5') and between sidewalk and curb (5'). Presumably
the street will remain one way with the addition of 12' of buffer space to the design. If
one draws a 75' wide right-of-way, which would be about a 20' widening on each side,
the right-of-way line would fall at the doorstep of the existing duplexes.
5. Encroachments - There is a split rail fence located on the City-owned Garrish Park
parcel. It is not clear if the fence belongs to the applicant or to the City. There is also
a split rail fence along the front of Garrish Park on King Street, however the fences on
the interior of the applicant's property are split rail as well. I suspect that the fence
belongs to the applicant. There is also a fence encroaching into the King Street right-
of-way. The applicant may apply for an encroachment license, but it would be preferable
to encumber future development on any of the lots with the requirement that fences be
relocated onto the applicant's property at the time of development/redevelopment.
6. Irri!!lltion Ditches - The final plat must indicate easement widths for the irrigation
ditches together with letters from the ditch companies accepting the proposed easement
widths. If the City owns water rights in the Molly Gibson ditch, we may be concerned
about the use of ditch water for a pond.
7. Sidewalk. Curb & Gutter - We recommend that construction of sidewalk be required
at the time of development in order to meet the requirements of the Ped Plan. This
requirement is also consistent with Section 19-98 of the Municipal Code.
Generally, we do not require or permit the construction of segments of curb and
gutter because of the need for comprehensive neighborhood design for storm runoff. As
provided for in the Code, we would require an agreement to construct curb and gutter at
such time as deemed necessary by the City.
c
,)
8. Slope Density Calculations - The accuracy of the slope density calculations must be
substantiated by the signature and stamp of a registered architect, surveyor or engineer.
9. Street Ul!ht - The Ped Plan does not indicate that this area is targeted for street lights,
however it should be noted that the Neighborhood Advisory Committee is increasingly
interested in improved street lighting as a night-time pedestrian enhancement. Chapter
24 provides for requiring street light installation at the time of subdivision. It may be
appropriate to require installation of an antique street light at this time or to require an
agreement to install one at such time as deemed appropriate by the City.
10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
11. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-
of-way, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M93.291
o
:)
- JU' ry~ L~c.-k
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Office
_ !II.'[)..,
Off icl:.-<J (l/
FROM:
Tom Baker, Housing
DATE:
November 23, 1993
RE:
Referral Comment: Billings Residential GMQS, Subdivision,
PUD and GMQS Exemption
REFERRAL COMMENTS: It appears that this application is only
required to mitigate for a:fordable housing for the Residential
GMQS portion of the application and not subdivision or PUD.
The applicant proposes to provide a one-bdrm, low income (category
#1) unit attached or detached to the principle dwelling unit on Lot
1. This unit must be a minimum of 600 net livable square feet and
be deed restricted prior to the issuance of a building permit for
Lot 1.
There is a typo on page 13. The last sentence of paragraph 2
indicates category #2: this should read Category #1.
Additionally, section 8-106 (E) (5) (b) (iii) should be amended to) l\.Cf
reflect that for each bdr.!! in excess of three, the occupancy
standard increases by .5 residents. Please see page 17 of the U:t
Affordable Housing guidelines. Since the Land Use Code supersedes
the Guidelines, the application meets our requirements.
1
c
.:)
=---~~~-l::'~, -:
,
..... I 3 is~
MEMORANDUM
L;........_._ ___
TO:
Mary Lackner
FROM:
Bill Drueding
wW
RE:
Billings Property - Zoning Referral
DATE:
January 13, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The applicant should define activity that is allowed outside
of the building envelope. Can decks protrude outside of the
envelope? Are hot tubs, patios, or other activities allowed
beyond the envelope? Is the building envelope actually
defining the setbacks?
2. The road easement will be deducted from the allowable FAR.
Refer to section 3-101, Lot Area Definition, in the Land Use
Code.
3. All area and bulk requirements shall be met at the building
permit stage.
c
~
Exhibit C
Subdivision
section 24-7-1004(C)
The Astor Subdivision was platted in 1980. The Subdivision
Agreement approved by the City specifies the limitation of a total
of six dwelling units within the subdivision unless the applicant
receives growth management approval to construct additional units.
This application will supersede the 1980 approval.
Section 7-1004.C sets the following review standards for
subdivision applications:
l.a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) was adopted in
January 1993. The Housing Action Plan identifies this site as
"great" for small, infill units. The applicant approached the
Housing Authority Board to purchase is property for affordable
housing, but it was not obtained by the County. Therefore, the
applicant has pursued the application being reviewed today which
consists of a one-bedroom fully deed restricted unit in conjunction
with a new free-market residence, thus creating a 50/50 unit split
on the property. The Growth Action Plan recommends a minimum of
60% affordable housing with new residential subdivisions (although
60% is not defined as bedrooms or dwelling units or employees).
The Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan identifies
King Street as a primary pedestrian commuter route and an off-road
bicycle route. The applicant has agreed to join an improvement
district, if one is formed, to facilitate the construction of
pedestrian improvements. Staff recommends that a sidewalk
agreement be filed with the City Engineer, so that construction of
a sidewalk can take place along King Street fronting the Astor
Subdivision at the instance of the city. The applicant has also
agreed to dedicate a trail easement along the Aspen Ditch as it
crosses the lower portion of the subdivision.
The applicant's proposal is consistent with the GMQS requirements
established in the Code. The implementation of the Growth Action
Plan is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission for
revisions in the future and this proposal mayor may not be
consistent with what is finally adopted. The applicant's proposal
is consistent with the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action
Plan if the applicant files a sidewalk agreement with the city.
l.b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in this area.
Response: King Street contains a mix of single family, duplex and
mUlti-family dwelling units. The Astor Subdivision is the only
parcel on King street which is zoned R-6, while the remaining
parcels are zoned R-15 and R-15a. Garrish Park, which is adjacent
to Astor Lots 2 and 3, is zoned Park. Due to the R-6 zoning,
c
J
additional density will be permitted within the Astor Subdivision
than on surrounding parcels. However, floor area of the R-6 lot
will be less than on a comparable sized lot in the R-15 and R-15a
zone districts. Staff believes the application represents an
infill project in a developed area of town where the majority of
future land use changes will be redevelopment of existing parcels.
1. c. The proposed sul:ldi vision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Response: As discussed in item b, there will be no adverse impact
on future development of surrounding properties.
1.d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: All development within the Astor Subdivision will be
required to comply with the requirements of the R-6 zone district
and relevant provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The
applicant is requesting a PUD variance for the minimum lot area
requirement on the newly created parcel. This request is discussed
in the following section.
2.a. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock
or soil creep, mUdflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide,
steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response: None of these natural hazards will affect the proposed
development.
2.b. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or
premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary
public costs.
Response: Since this project is an infill development, no
inefficient spatial patterns, premature extension of public
facilities or unnecessary public costs will be created by the
proposed development. The primary infrastructure to serve
development in the King Street area is already in place.
The applicant will need to submit a Final Plat and Subdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of city Council review, if the project
is approved.
c
,......,
'-'
Planned unit Development
section 24-7-903
The applicant is requesting one variance pursuant to section 7-
903, the PUD section, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The
request is made in order to reduce the minimum lot area requirement
for the newly created parcel. In addition to the review
requirements of the Subdivision regulations, PUD adds a requirement
for density reduction for steep slopes. The slope density
reduction calculation prepared for this property does not affect
the proposed development.
The newly created parcel will be 9,130 sq. ft. of which
approximately 1,840 sq. ft. is encumbered by an access easement.
Therefore, for density and floor area purposes, the lot size is
actually 7,290 sq.ft. The applicant is proposing a free-market and
an affordable dwelling unit, 4,500 sq.ft. of lot area is required
for each unit, for a total of 9,000 sq.ft. section 7-903.B.4
allows a lot area variance if lithe total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone
district." When all lots are averaged (easement excluded and slope
density reduction taken into account) the total subdivision
contains 41,160 sq. ft. Therefore, each lot averages 10,260 sq. ft.
in lot area, which exceeds the 9,000 sq. ft. required for each
parcel. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to the Planned
unit Development regulations because the total lot area of all lots
within the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area for the zone
district.
Staff recommends that the PUD variance be accommodated through the
consolidation of conceptual and final development review because
of the limited extent of the issues involved with the PUD request.
('.
\..j
""
"j
GMQS Exemption for an Affordable Housing Unit
section 24-8-l04(C) (1) (c)
In order for a residential growth management application to be
competitive and meet a threshold score, a provision of affordable
housing must be made by the applicant. In this application, an on-
site, one-bedroom, low income affordable housing unit is proposed
to be constructed on the newly created parcel. section 8-104. C. 1. c
allows City Council to exempt these affordable dwelling units based
on the need for the unit, their compliance with the adopted housing
plan, the type of unit and the price category to which the unit
will be deed restricted.
City Council adopts the applicant's housing mitigation package
based upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission. When
assessing the housing proposal the Commission should consider the
following:
1.
Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop
housing with monies received from payment of
housing dedication fees.
affordable
affordable
Response: The Housing Authority has a program to acquire land and
develop affordable housing units.
2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing.
Response: This site is designated within AACP's Housing Action
Plan as a "great" location for use as affordable housing, however,
the Housing Authority did not purchase the property when it was
offered to them by the applicant.
3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints to develop or historic preservation
concerns.
Response: The site is well suited for affordable housing, due to
its location to downtown Aspen and the available services on-site.
No environmental constraints or historic preservation issues affect
this property.
4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing
being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the community.
Response: The employee housing is proposed to be phased with the
development of the new residence.
5. Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs.
c
""'
"J
Response: The GMQS process requires a provision
housing to be provided with new development,
development has been determined to generate the need
employees within the community.
of affordable
because such
for additional
staff and the Planning commission recommend approval of the housing
mitigation package to City Council.
r
"''''''
"""I
'-"
Exhibit 0
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING A RESIDENTIAL GMQS SCORE OF 34.4 POINTS
FOR ONE NEW FREE MARKET DWELLING UNIT AND RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND GMQS
EXEMPTION FOR AN AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT FOR THE BILLINGS
APPLICATION WHICH IS LOCATED AT 981, 985 AND 995 KING STREET
(ALSO KNOWN AS THE ASTOR SUBDIVISION)
Resolution No. 93-~1
WHEREAS, C.L. Astor and company and Carla Billings,
represented by Sunny Vann, submitted an application for a
residential Growth Management allocation including subdivision and
PUD in order to resubdivide the Astor Subdivision and create one
new parcel to contain a free market dwelling unit within the R-6
zone district; and
WHEREAS, this is the only application seeking a residential
Growth Management allocation for the 1993 competition; and
WHEREAS, section 24-7-903(B) (4) of the Aspen Municipal Code
allows a reduction in the minimum lot area of a subdivision under
the Planned Unit Development regulations. The Planning Commission
has found that the applicant's request to reduce the minimum lot
area requirements complies with the provisions of the Code and
recommends approval of this PUD variance to City council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the
applicant's request complies with the Subdivision criteria of
section 24-7-1004(C) to create one new parcel and the Affordable
Housing unit requirements of Section 24-8-104(C) (1) (c) of the Code
and recommends approval of this request to City council; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to, and the Commission accepted
the Planning Office recommended GMP score of 34.4 points and found
that the minimum category thresholds have been met, allowing city
Council to award one residential free market allocation to the
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission considered the
applicant's request at a duly noticed public hearing on January 4,
1994 at which time the Commission voted 4-2 to approve the request
with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That it does hereby recommend the allocation of one residential
GMQS allotment, subdivision, Planned unit Development and an
Affordable Housing Unit for the Billing project subject to the
following conditions:
c
""\
......,I
Resolution #93-__
Page 2
1. The applicant shall place the following note on the final
plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access
easement. No road cut off King street is permitted for
Lot 1."
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3 .
The applicant shall
agreement to the City
Final Plat.
submit a sidewalk, curb and gutter
Engineer, prior to recordation of the
4. A housing mitigation program for 1. 75 employees must be
approved by city Council and appropriate deed restrictions or
payments must be completed, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
5. The right-of-way width to be granted by the applicant shall
be resolved, prior to recordation of the Final Plat.
6.
The name of
Subdivision, as
the city.
the subdivision shall remain the Astor
there is already a Billings Subdivision within
7. The applicant shall submit a Final Plat and Subdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of city Council review, for review
and approval by the City Attorney, city Engineer, and Planning
Office.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
9. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to Section
24-7-903(B) (4) because the total lot area of all lots within
the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area requirements for
the zone district.
10. The applicant shall pay their fair share of paving and
improving the access easement with all lots which use this
easement.
t""
'""
:)
Resolution #93-__
paqe 3
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January
4, 1994.
Planninq and Zoninq Commission:
.~b-tL
Chair
Attest:
Jan /Carney, I.
, .
Deputy C1ty Cl k
re.o.apz.gmq..billing.
c
,......
Exhibt E
.".""
January 21, 1994
Mayor John Bennett
Members of the Aspen City Council
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
Dear Mayor Bennett and Council Members,
On January 19, most of the homeowners from the King street
neighborhood gathered together to discuss the possible impacts of
the Billings Subdivision and GMQS application. Mary Lackner from
the Planning Office was present at our meeting in City Hall to
explain the pending application and the city zoning Code.
After reviewing several positions the neighbors listed below
unanimously supported a motion asking City council to deny Mrs.
Billings' application for Subdivision and GMQS allocation. The
primary reason for our opposition is that the proposed density is
not consistent with the immediate neighborhood.
The three block area adjacent to Mrs. Billings property is zoned
either R-15 or R-15A. The applicants' property was rezoned R-6 in
1978, and subdivided into three 15,000 sq. ft. lots at that time.
In exchange for this rezoning, 3 units were deed restricted for
employee housing. The 1978 subdivision created a density that was
consistent with the neighborhood. The present application is
proposing a greater density than is allowed for the rest of the
three block area.
A majority of the homes in this area are owned and occupied by
families working in Aspen. The neighbors debated at length whether
to request R-6 zoning for the whole area and to reap the same
build-out potential as Mrs. Billings. We decided that it was more
important to preserve our medium density neighborhood than to sell
out to the highest dollar and have an increase of larger homes
owned by non-residents.
As a neighborhood, we have two main concerns regarding the Billings
proposal.
1. If Council approves this application, our neighborhood will be
adversely affected as a result of the aforementioned spot zoning
and we will suffer from the increased density allowed by the R-6
zoning, which would permit a 4000+ sq. ft. house with an accessory
unit.
2. Mrs. Billings would be able to return to City Council in the
future and request an additional sUbdivision, developing a total
of nine or ten units on her 45,000 sq. ft. of land. This density is
far in excess to the surrounding R-15 and R-15A neighborhood
zoning; a scale of development not consistent with the neighborhood
and unacceptable to all of us.
1""'.
.
-
:>
Please do not force this type and magnitude of development, that
has ruined other neighborhoods, down our throats. We are trying to
preserve our Aspen neighborhood as a living, working community; and
we need your help.
We ask you to halt this unwanted, unnecessary growth by denying the
Billings subdivision application and precluding future subdivision
and over-development of this property.
Thank you for your
~--
Ralph Braden
977 Q ee st eet
consideration and assistance.
-
~
oremus, Representing
Candreia Family
930 King street
TO::rsaC
975 King street
Ja qu lyn ~~~
980 ing Street
Chuck and Brice Maple
927 Gibson Avenue
James Mickey
931 Gibson Ave.
;L fL. -I<>>.M.~ ~
Ken Owen
115.Nealestree~
Jef(;?:;{I'-] l
113 '~ri'; ~~ll Street
Lana Trettin
17 Queen Street
.1"'"'
",j
, ./
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City council ,\l~
Amy Margerum, City Manager~
Diane Moore, city Planning Direct~
Mary Lackner, Planner
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
February 14, 1994
Adoption of Resolution # 15 , Awarding the Residential
Allocation for the 1993 Growth Management Quota System
Competition
RE:
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Growth Management allocations are granted through
resolution adoption by City Council. Attached is Resolution #~
for your consideration and adoption. There was only one growth
management application for the 1993 residential competition.
The Planning and Zoning
application for one residence
Street and scored the project
minimum threshold established
commission reviewed the Billings
to be an infill development on King
34.4 points. This exceeds the 33.6
by the Municipal Code.
STAFF DISCUSSION: The staff review for the Billings application
is a separate action item for Council, which is also being reviewed
at tonight's meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends adoption of this
allotment resolution.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #L {Series 1994)."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
c
'"'"
''<
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager~
Diane Moore, City Planning Director~,
Mary Lackner, Planner
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
February 14, 1994
RE:
Billings
Rights -
Subdivision/PUD, GMQS Exe~tion and
First Reading of Ordinance ,1994
Vested
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning commission and the Planning
Office recommend approval of the Subdivision to create a 9,130
sq. ft. parcel, PUD to vary the minimum lot area requirement, GMQS
Exemption for an on-site affordable dwelling unit, and for vested
property rights. The Billings Residential GMQS application was
awarded 34.4 points in the residential GMQS competition by the
Planning Commission on January 4, 1994.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the Astor
Subdivision in 1980. This is a three lot subdivision and each lot
is improved with a duplex unit.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mrs. Carla Billings (the
applicant) seeks a residential GMQS allocation for one free-market
dwelling unit to be located on a newly created parcel within the
Astor Subdivision. The applicant is also proposing an affordable
dwelling unit on the new lot. This is the only residential GMQS
application for the 1993 competition. Please refer to the complete
application package, Exhibit "A".
The project is located at 981, 985, and 995 King Street, which
includes Lots 1-3 of the Astor SUbdivision, and contains 45,280
sq. ft. of lot area. This subdivision is zoned R-6.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached in Exhibit
"B" of this memorandum.
CURRENT ISSUES: Staff discussion of the Subdivision, PUD, and GMQS
Exemption review criteria is contained in Exhibit "C". Staff and
the Commission believe that this proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Municipal Code.
section 24-6-207 dictates the process and ordinance language
requirements for establishing vested rights for three years.
Planning and Zoning commission resolution of approval is attached
for your reference in Exhibit "D".
c
'"'
-...",
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval of the Billings Subdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption and
Vested Rights, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall place the following note on the final
plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access
easement. No road cut off King street is permitted for
Lot 1."
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3.
The applicant shall
agreement to the City
Final Plat.
submit a sidewalk, curb and gutter
Engineer, prior to recordation of the
4. A housing mitigation program for 1.75 employees must be
approved by city Council and appropriate deed restrictions
must be completed, prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. The right-of-way width to be granted by the applicant shall
be resolved, prior to second reading by Council.
The name of the subdivision
SUbdivision, as there is already a
the City.
7. The applicant shall submit a Final Plat and Subdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of City Council review, for review
and approval by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Planning
Office.
shall remain the Astor
Billings Subdivision within
6.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
9. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to section
24-7-903(B) (4). The total lot area of all lots within the
subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area requirements for the
zone district.
10.
The applicant
improving the
easement.
shall pay their fair share of paving and
access easement with all lots which use this
Conditions 3 and 4 have been changed in the Ordinance as follows:
3. The applicant shall construct a sidewalk along the Astor
Subdivision as it fronts King Street at the time Lot 1 is
2
"
c
.-
-
developed. A curb and gutter agreement shall be executed and
recorded, prior to recordation of the Final Plat.
4. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions for a one
bedroom, Category 2 affordable housing unit to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval, prior to
issuance of any building permits. Upon approval by the
Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed
restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder I s
Office.
Prior to issuance of any building permits for the property,
a copy of the recorded deed restrictions for the new dwelling
units must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
All material representations made by
application and during public meetings
Zoning Commission and City Council
conditions of approval, unless amended
the applicant in the
with the Planning and
shall be considered
by other conditions.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have first reading of Ordinance 1-,
1994 for approval for approval of the Billings Subdivision, PUD,
GMQS Exemption and Vested Rights as discussed in the City Council
memorandum dated February 15, 1994."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ordinance~, 1994
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Package
"B" - Referral Comments (ACSD, city Engineer, Housing Office)
"C" - Code Review criteria (Subdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption)
"D" - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution
3
r"
\,.,
.~
Exhibit B
Aspen 8onsolidated Sanitation CDistlfict
565 North Mill Street .
Aspen, Colorado 81611
GEe \ i iS0J
Tele. (303) 925-3601
FAX #(303)925,2537- -----
Sy Kelly - Chairman
John J. Snyder - Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy.
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, M,
December -15, 1993
Mary Lackner
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen. CO 81611
Re: Billings Property GMQS
Dear Mary:
At the present time
has sufficient line
deve 1 opment. There
Oklahoma Flats area
from connection fee
deve I opment.
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
and treatment capacity to serve this
are downstream line constraints in the
that we are eliminating with funds generated
surcharges, which would be applied to this
As usual service is
District's Rules and
District off ice. Once
can be issued through
connection fees.
contingent upon compliance with the
Regulations, which are on file at the
detailed plans are available a tap permit
our office which will estimate the total
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
'&.-- ~ ""'...;\.....,.- D
Bruce Matherly
Discrict Manager
c
:)
l.... '^ '\1 -- j ,
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer (l~
Date: December 27, 1993
Re: Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD, and GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Storm Runoff - For the GMQS scoring, the application meets the minimum standards
of the Municipal Code.
This application is for a resubdivision of the Astor Subdivision which was approved
by the City Council on May 13, 1980. The storm runoff requirements of Section 24-7-
1004.C.4.f should have been applied to development on the parcels at that time. In any
event, storm runoff mitigation in accordance with the Code should be required for future
development on any and each of the proposed four lots. Additionally, we would like to
add the requirement that the development plans provide, during construction, for storm
runoff from soils exposed by excavation to be maintained on site and not released to the
Roaring Fork River or public rights-of-way.
2. Trash Storage - The final development plans for each parcel shall indicate on-site trash
storage locations.
3. Utilities - Any new transformers or utility pedestals must be located on easements on
the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way.
4. Right-of-way Width - The right-of-way widths of King Street were created when the
abutting properties were in the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. The City Engineering
Department records are incomplete concerning the right-of-way widths, but it appears from
the annexation map (The Smuggler Enclave Annexation, Drawing No. 540-44) that the
width varies and may be as narrow as 35 feet or less.
Section 24-7-1004.C.4.a(3) requires a right-of-way width of 60 feet for a local street
and 80 feet for a collector. (This has generally been interpreted to apply as 75 feet since
that is the typical dimension for the right-of-way widths in the historical platting of Aspen.)
King Street is at present a one-way street. There is no master plan for future right-
of-way widths for Aspen streets or for the eventual two-waying of King Street. However,
in the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan (Ped Plan), King Street is indicated
c
"
J
both as a primary pedestrian route and as an off-road trail bikeway route. This should
be considered in determining desirable future right-of-way width. An additional
consideration in right-of-way width and use design is the need or plan for on-street
parking.
We recommend that the right-of-way width be enlarged to 60 feet and that
approximately 12.5 feet of right-of-way width be dedicated by the applicant. If additional
right-of-way width is desired, it is typical to acquire right-of-way dedication at the time of
subdivision. The are a great number of City land use applications which have provided
for right-of-way dedication in the past.
The breakdown on right-of-way use dimensions is as follows:
2 sidewalks at 5' wide . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10'
2 vehicle travel lanes at 12' wide ....... 24'
2 "lanes" of on-street parking at 8' ...... 16'
2 buffer spaces at 2' wide ............. 4'
1 biCYcle lane at 6' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6'
Total .......................... 60'
As can be seen, this layout does not provide for the typical West End buffer spaces
between property line and sidewalk (7.5') and between sidewalk and curb (5'). Presumably
the street will remain one way with the addition of 12' of buffer space to the design. If
one draws a 75' wide right-of-way, which would be about a 20' widening on each side,
the right-of-way line would fall at the doorstep of the existing duplexes.
5. Encroachments - There is a split rail fence located on the City-owned Garrish Park
parcel. It is not clear if the fence belongs to the applicant or to the City. There is also
a split rail fence along the front of Garrish Park on King Street, however the fences on
the interior of the applicant's property are split rail as well. I suspect that the fence
belongs to the applicant. There is also a fence encroaching into the King Street right-
of-way. The applicant may apply for an encroachment license, but it would be preferable
to encumber future development on any of the lots with the requirement that fences be
relocated onto the applicant's property at the time of development/redevelopment.
6. Irri!!lltion Ditches - The final plat must indicate easement widths for the irrigation
ditches together with letters from the ditch companies accepting the proposed easement
widths. If the City owns water rights in the Molly Gibson ditch, we may be concerned
about the use of ditch water for a pond.
7. Sidewalk. Curb & Gutter - We recommend that construction of sidewalk be required
at the time of development in order to meet the requirements of the Ped Plan. This
requirement is also consistent with Section 19-98 of the Municipal Code.
Generally, we do not require or permit the construction of segments of curb and
gutter because of the need for comprehensive neighborhood design for storm runoff. As
provided for in the Code, we would require an agreement to construct curb and gutter at
such time as deemed necessary by the City.
I""'>
~
"'"'"
.....,.I
8. Slove Density Calculations - The accuracy of the slope density calculations must be
substantiated by the signature and stamp of a registered architect, surveyor or engineer.
9. Street Light - The Ped Plan does not indicate that this area is targeted for street lights,
however it should be noted that the Neighborhood Advisory Committee is increasingly
interested in improved street lighting as a night-time pedestrian enhancement. Chapter
24 provides for requiring street light installation at the time of subdivision. It may be
appropriate to require installation of an antique street light at this time or to require an
agreement to install one at such time as deemed appropriate by the City.
10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
11. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-
of-way, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M93.291
o
:)
JU'
rv~ La.~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Office
FROM:
~ !ltAL}.,
Tom Baker, Housing Offic,,-<!ll/
DATE:
November 23, 1993
RE:
Referral Comment: Billings Residential GMQS, Subdivision,
PUD and GMQS Exemption
REFERRAL COMMENTS: It appears that this application is. only
required to mitigate for a=fordable housing for the Residential
GMQS portion of the application and not subdivision or PUD.
The applicant proposes to provide a one-bdrm, low income (category
#1) unit attached or detached to the principle dwelling unit on Lot
1. This unit must be a minimum of 600 net livable square feet and
be deed restricted prior to the issuance of a building permit for
Lot 1.
There is a typo on page 13. The last sentence of paragraph 2
indicates Category #2: this should read Category #1.
Additionally, section 8-106(E) (5) (b) (iii) should be amended to)luJ.
reflect that for each bdrm in excess of three, the occupancy .
standard increases by .5 residents. Please see page 17 of the Ui
Affordable Housing guidelines. Since the Land Use Code supersedes
the Guidelines, the application meets our requirements.
1
, .
c
:)
JIM I 3 IS;jl
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mary Lackner
FROM:
Bill Drueding
uJdl
RE:
Billings Property - zoning Referral
DATE:
January 13, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The applicant should define activity that is allowed outside
of the building envelope. Can decks protrude outside of the
envelope? Are hot tubs, patios, or other activities allowed
beyond the envelope? Is the building envelope actually
defining the setbacks?
2. The road easement will be deducted from the allowable FAR.
Refer to Section 3-101, Lot Area Definition, in the Land Use
Code.
3. All area and bulk requirements shall be met at the building
permit stage.
t"~
.,,-,
-
\.......,
Exhibit C
Subdivision
section 24-7-1004(C)
The Astor Subdivision was platted in 1980. The Subdivision
Agreement approved by the city specifies the limitation of a total
of six dwelling units within the subdivision unless the applicant
receives growth management approval to construct additional units.
This application will supersede the 1980 approval.
section 7-1004.C sets the following review standards for
subdivision applications:
l.a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) was adopted in
January 1993. The Housing Action Plan identifies this site as
"great" for small, infill units. The applicant approached the
Housing Authority Board to purchase is property for affordable
housing, but it was not obtained by the County. Therefore, the
applicant has pursued the application being reviewed today which
consists of a one-bedroom fully deed restricted unit in conjunction
with a new free-market residence, thus creating a 50/50 unit split
on the property. The Growth Action Plan recommends a minimum of
60% affordable housing with new residential subdivisions (although
60% is not defined as bedrooms or dwelling units or employees).
The Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan identifies
King Street as a primary pedestrian commuter route and an off-road
bicycle route. The applicant has agreed to join an improvement
district, if one is formed, to facilitate. the construction of
pedestrian improvements. Staff recommends that a sidewalk
agreement be filed with the city Engineer, so that construction of
a sidewalk can take place along King Street fronting the Astor
Subdivision at the instance of the city. The applicant has also
agreed to dedicate a trail easement along the Aspen Ditch as it
crosses the lower portion of the subdivision.
The applicant's proposal is consistent with the GMQS requirements
established in the Code. The implementation of the Growth Action
Plan is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission for
revisions in the future and this proposal mayor may not be
consistent with what is finally adopted. The applicant's proposal
is consistent with the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action
Plan if the applicant files a sidewalk agreement with the city.
l.b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in this area.
Response: King Street contains a mix of single family, duplex and
mUlti-family dwelling units. The Astor Subdivision is the only
parcel on King street which is zoned R-6, while the remaining
parcels are zoned R-15 and R-15a. Garrish Park, which is adjacent
to Astor Lots 2 and 3, is zoned Park. Due to the R-6 zoning,
c
.""'\
>...,.)
additional density will be permitted within the Astor Subdivision
than on surrounding parcels. However, floor area of the R-6 lot
will be less than on a comparable sized lot in the R-15 and R-15a
zone districts. Staff believes the application represents an
infill project in a developed area of town where the majority of
future land use changes will be redevelopment of existing parcels.
1.c. The proposed sUbdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Response: As discussed in item b, there will be no adverse impact
on future development of surrounding properties.
l.d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: All development within the Astor Subdivision will be
required to comply with the requirements of the R-6 zone district
and relevant provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The
applicant is requesting a PUD variance for the minimum lot area
requirement on the newly created parcel. This request is discussed
in the following section.
2.a. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock
or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide,
steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response: None of these natural hazards will affect the proposed
development.
2.b. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or
premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary
public costs.
Response: Since this project is an infill development, no
inefficient spatial patterns, premature extension of public
facilities or unnecessary public costs will be created by the
proposed development. The primary infrastructure to serve
development in the King Street area is already in place.
The applicant will need to submit a Final Plat and Subdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of City Council review, if the project
is approved.
c
"'"
"j
. Planned unit Development
section 24-7-903
The applicant is requesting one variance pursuant to Section 7-
903, the PUD section, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The
request is made in order to reduce the minimum lot area requirement
for the newly created parcel. In addition to the review
requirements of the Subdivision regulations, PUD adds a requirement
for density reduction for steep slopes. The slope density
reduction calculation prepared for this property does not affect
the proposed development.
The newly created parcel will be 9,130 sq. ft. of which
approximately 1,840 sq. ft. is encumbered by an access easement.
Therefore, for density and floor area purposes, the lot size is
actually 7,290 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a free-market and
an affordable dwelling unit, 4,500 sq. ft. of lot area is required
for each unit, for a total of 9,000 sq. ft. section 7-903.B.4
allows a lot area variance if "the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone
district." When all lots are averaged (easement excluded and slope
density reduction taken into account) the total subdivision
contains 41,160 sq. ft. Therefore, each lot averages 10,260 sq. ft.
in lot area, which exceeds the 9,000 sq. ft. required for each
parcel. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to the Planned
unit Development regulations because the total lot area of all lots
within the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area for the zone
district.
Staff recommends that the PUD variance be accommodated through the
consolidation of conceptual and final development review because
of the limited extent of the issues involved with the PUD request.
c
,.......
,,,,,,I
GMQS Exemption for an Affordable Housing unit
section 24-8-104(C) (1) (c)
In order for a residential growth management application to be
competitive and meet a threshold score, a provision of affordable
housing must be made by the applicant. In this application, an on-
site, one-bedroom, low income affordable housing unit is proposed
to be constructed on the newly created parcel. section 8-104.C.1.c
allows city Council to exempt these affordable dwelling units based
on the need for the unit, their compliance with the adopted housing
plan, the type of unit and the price category to which the unit
will be deed restricted.
City Council adopts the applicant I s housing mitigation package
based upon a recommendation by the Planning commission. When
assessing the housing proposal the Commission should consider the
following:
1.
Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop
housing with monies received from payment of
housing dedication fees.
affordable
affordable
Response: The Housing Authority has a program to acquire land and
develop affordable housing units.
2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing.
Response: This site is designated within AACP's Housing Action
Plan as a "great" location for use as affordable housing, however,
the Housing Authority did not purchase the property when it was
offered to them by the applicant.
3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints to develop or historic preservation
concerns.
Response: The site is well suited for affordable housing, due to
its location to downtown Aspen and the available services on-site.
No environmental constraints or historic preservation issues affect
this property.
4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing
being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the community.
Response: The employee housing is proposed to be phased with the
development of the new residence.
5. Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs.
r
I",..,-
:)
Response: The GMQS process requires a provision
housing to be provided with new development,
development has been determined to generate the need
employees within the community.
of affordable
because such
for additional
staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the housing
mitigation package to City Council.
,""
'-,/
,"""
",.,I
Exhibit D
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING A RESIDENTIAL GMQS SCORE OF 34.4 POINTS
FOR ONE NEW FREE MARKET DWELLING UNIT AND RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND GMQS
EXEMPTION FOR AN AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT FOR THE BILLINGS
APPLICATION WHICH IS LOCATED AT 981, 985 AND 995 KING STREET
(ALSO KNOWN AS THE ASTOR SUBDIVISION)
Resolution No. 93-~;f
WHEREAS, C.L. Astor and Company and Carla Billings,
represented by Sunny Vann, submitted an application for a
residential Growth Management allocation including subdivision and
PUD in order to resubdivide the Astor Subdivision and create one
new parcel to contain a free market dwelling unit within the R-6
zone district; and
WHEREAS, this is the only application seeking a residential
Growth Management allocation for the 1993 competition; and
WHEREAS, section 24-7-903 (B) (4) of the Aspen Municipal Code
allows a reduction in the minimum lot area of a subdivision under
the Planned unit Development regulations. The Planning Commission
has found that the applicant's request to reduce the minimum lot
area requirements complies with the provisions of the Code and
recommends approval of this PUD variance to City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission has found that the
applicant's request complies with the Subdivision criteria of
Section 24-7-1004(C) to create one new parcel and the Affordable
Housing Unit requirements of Section 24-8-104(C) (1) (c) of the Code
and recommends approval of this request to City Council; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to, and the Commission accepted
the Planning Office recommended GMP score of 34.4 points and found
that the minimum category thresholds have been met, allowing City
Council to award one residential free market allocation to the
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning commission considered the
applicant's request at a duly noticed public hearing on January 4,
1994 at which time the commission voted 4-2 to approve the request
with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That it does hereby recommend the allocation of one residential
GMQS allotment, Subdivision, Planned Unit Development and an
Affordable Housing Unit for the Billing project subject to the
following conditions:
l'"
"'-"
'"""
.~
Resolution #93-
Page 2 --
1. The applicant shall place the following note on the final
plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access
easement. No road cut off King street is permitted for
Lot 1."
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3. The applicant shall submit a sidewalk, curb and gutter
agreement to the City Engineer, prior to recordation of the
Final Plat.
4. A housing mitigation program for 1.75 employees must be
approved by City Council and appropriate deed restrictions or
payments must be completed, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
5. The right-of-way width to be granted by the applicant shall
be resolved, prior to recordation of the Final Plat.
6. The name of the subdivision shall remain the Astor
Subdivision, as there is already a Billings Subdivision within
the City.
7. The applicant shall submit a Final Plat and Subdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of City Council review, for review
and approval by the city Attorney, City Engineer, and Planning
Office.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
9. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to section
24-7-903(B) (4) because the total lot area of all lots within
the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area requirements for
the zone district.
10. The applicant shall pay their fair share of paving and
improving the access easement with all lots which use this
easement.
c
J
Resolution #93-
Page 3
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January
4, 1994.
Planning and Zoning commission:
.!{~~
Chair
Attest:
Jan ,carney, ('
, .
Deputy C1ty Cl k
r..o.apz.gmqs.billings
c
'1
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and zoning commission
FROM:
Mary Lackner, Planner
RE:
Billings 1993 Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD, GMQS
Exemption, and vested Property Rights
DATE:
January 4, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This application seeks a Residential Growth Management
allocation for one free-market dwelling unit, Subdivision to create
a 9,130 sq. ft. parcel, PUD to vary the minimum lot area
requirement, GMQS Exemption for an affordable dwelling unit, and
Vested Property Rights for a period of three years.
The parcel presently contains three platted lots known as the Astor
Subdivision. Each parcel is improved a duplex unit. This
application will resubdivide this subdivision into four lots.
In an initial scoring by Planning staff, the project meets minimum
scoring thresholds.
APPLICANT: C. L. Astor and Company, Mrs. Carla Billings,
represented by Vann Associates, Mr. Sunny Vann.
LOCATION: 981, 985 and 995 King Street, which contains Lots 1-3
of the Astor Subdivision. The subdivision contains 45,280 square
feet.
ZONING: R-6 Medium-Density Residential.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a residential
growth management allotment for one free-market dwelling unit to
be located on a newly created parcel within the Astor Subdivision.
The applicant is proposing an affordable dwelling unit on the new
lot. Please refer to the complete application package.
PROCESS: It is suggested that the Planning commission first review
the project's requested SUbdivision, PUD and GMQS Exemption prior
to scoring. If the Subdivision, PUD and GMQS Exemption are
approved, the Commission will score the project. Staff has scored
the project and submits this score to the Planning commission
("Exhibit A"). The Commission may elect to accept staff's score
as their own.
If the Commission finds the project meets minimum point thresholds,
it will be forwarded to the city Council for GMP allocation of one
dwelling unit, approval of a housing mitigation package, and vested
property rights. There is no competition for this year's
residential GMQS program, as this is the only application that has
been filed.
\
c
:J
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly has
indicated that there are downstream line constraints in the
Oklahoma Flats area and that all new development upstream is
required to pay a connection surcharge to relieve this system
constraint.
2. Engineering Department: Chuck Roth has discussed storm
runoff, trash/utility areas, right-of-way width, irrigation
ditches, encroachments, and sidewalk/curb and gutter issues
in this memorandum.
3. Fire Marshall: Wayne Vandemark states that the project will
have to meet the Uniform Fire Code.
4. Housing Authority: Tom Baker has reviewed the applicant's
housing proposal and has indicated that the unit must be a
.minimum of 600 net livable square feet.
s. Parks Department: Rebecca Baker has requested that a six foot
easement from the centerline of the Aspen ditch be granted by
the applicant for trail purposes. The easement will only
encumber the southwestern portion of the property.
6. Water Department: Phil Overeynder has submitted comments that
the Water Department has the ability to serve this project
once the applicable utility and connection fees are paid by
the applicant.
STAFF COMMENTS: This is the only residential growth management
submission for 1993. At a minimum, after other GMP exemptions are
counted, 30% of the 20 total allowable units must be available for
competition. The minimum is 6 units, so this proposal does not
exceed the available allocation.
staff recommends that the Commission first discuss the Subdivision,
PUD and GMQS Exemption prior to scoring the project.
Subdivision
The Astor Subdivision was platted in 1980. The Subdivision
Agreement approved by the City specifies the limitation of a total
of six dwelling units within the subdivision unless the applicant
receives growth management approval to construct additional units.
This application will supersede the 1980 approval.
section 7-1004.C sets the
subdivision applications:
following review standards
for
1.a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
2
~
o
:)
Area comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area community Plan (AACP) was adopted in
January 1993. The Housing Action Plan identifies this site as
"great" for small, infill units. The applicant approached the
Housing Authority Board to purchase is property for affordable
housing, but it was not obtained by the County. Therefore, the
applicant has pursued the application being reviewed today which
consists of a one-bedroom fully deed restricted unit in conjunction
with a new free-market residence, thus creating a 50/50 unit split
on the property. The Growth Action Plan recommends a minimum of
60% affordable housing with new residential subdivisions (although
60% is not defined as bedrooms or dwelling units).
The Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan identifies
King Street as a primary pedestrian commuter route and an off-road
bicycle route. The applicant has agreed to join an improvement
district, if one is formed, to facilitate the construction of
pedestrian improvements. Staff recommends that a sidewalk
agreement be filed with the City Engineer, so that construction of
a sidewalk can take place along the Astor Subdivision at the
instance of the city.
The applicant's proposal is not consistent with the Growth Action
Plan because the applicant is meeting a minimum of 60% affordable
housing in this new subdivision. The applicant I s proposal is
consistent with the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action
Plan if the applicant files a sidewalk agreement with the city.
l.b. The proposed sUbdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in this area.
Response: King Street contains a mix of single family, duplex and
mUlti-family dwelling units. The Astor Subdivision is the only
parcel on King Street which is zoned R-6, while the remaining
parcels are zoned R-15 and R-15a. Garrish Park, which is adjacent
to Astor Lots 2 and 3. is zoned Park. Due to the R-6 zoning,
additional density will be permitted within the Astor Subdivision
than on surrounding parcels. However, floor area of the R-6 lot
will be less than on a comparable sized lot in the R-15 and R-15a
zone districts. Staff believes the application represents an
infill project in a developed area of town where the majority of
future land use changes will be redevelopment of existing parcels.
1.c. The proposed sUbdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Response: As discussed in item b, there will be no adverse impact
on future development of surrounding properties.
l.d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
3
~
c
'"
-.J
Response: The all development within the Astor Subdivision will
be required to comply with the requirements of the R-6 zone
district and relevant provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
The applicant is requesting a PUD variance for the minimum lot area
requirement on the newly created parcel. This request is discussed
in the following section.
2.a. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock
or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide,
steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response: None of these natural hazards will affect the proposed
development.
2.b. The proposed sUbdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or
premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary
public costs.
Response: Since this project is an infill development, no
inefficient spatial patterns, premature extension of public
facilities or unnecessary public costs will be created by the
proposed development. The primary infrastructure to serve
development in the King street area is already in place.
The applicant will need to submit a Final Plat and SUbdivision/PUD
Agreement within 90 days of City Council review, if the project is
approved.
Planned unit Development
The applicant is requesting one variance pursuant to section 7-
903, the PUD section, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The
request is made in order to reduce the minimum lot area requirement
for the newly created parcel. In addition to the review
requirements of the Subdivision regulations, PUD adds a requirement
for density reduction for steep slopes. The slope density
reduction calculation prepared for this property does not affect
the proposed development.
The newly created parcel will be 9,130 sq. ft. of which
approximately 1,840 sq. ft. is encumbered by an access easement.
Therefore, for density and floor area purposes, the lot size is
actually 7,290 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a free-market and
an affordable dwelling unit, 4,500 sq. ft. of lot area is required
for each unit, for a total of 9,000 sq. ft. section 7-903.B.4
allows a lot area variance if "the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone
4
V\
c
:)
district." When all lots are averaged (easement excluded and slope
density reduction taken into account) the total subdivision
contains 41,160 sq. ft. Therefore, each lot averages 10,260 sq. ft.
in lot area, which exceeds the 9,000 sq. ft. required for each
parcel. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to the Planned
unit Development regulations because the total lot area of all lots
within the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area for the zone
district.
staff recommends that the PUD variance be accommodated through the
consolidation of conceptual and final development review because
of the limited extent of the issues involved with the PUD request.
GMQS Exemption for an Affordable Housing unit
In order for a residential growth management application to be
competitive and meet a threshold score, a provision of affordable
housing must be made by the applicant. In this application, an on-
site, one-bedroom, low income affordable housing unit is proposed
to be constructed on the newly created parcel. section 8-104.C.I.c
allows City Council to exempt these affordable dwelling units based
on the need for the unit, their compliance with the adopted housing
plan, the type of unit and the price category to which the unit
will be deed restricted.
City Council adopts the applicant's housing mitigation package
based upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission. When
assessing the housing proposal the Commission should consider the
following:
1.
Whether
housing
housing
the city has an adopted plan to develop
with monies received from payment of
dedication fees.
affordable
affordable
Response: The Housing Authority has a program to acquire land and
develop affordable housing units.
2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing.
Response: This site is designated within AACP's Housing Action
Plan as a "great" location for use as affordable housing, however,
the Housing Authority did not purchase the property when it was
offered to them by the applicant.
3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints to develop or historic preservation
concerns.
5
~
r-
1.../
r'"'\
.~
Response: The site is well suited for affordable housing, due to
its location to downtown Aspen and the available services on-site.
No environmental constraints or historic preservation issues affect
this property.
4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing
being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the community.
Response: The employee housing is proposed to be phased with the
development of the new residence.
5. Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs.
Response: The GMQS process requires a provision
housing to be provided with new development,
development has been determined to generate the need
employees within the community.
of affordable
because such
for additional
staff recommends that the Planning commission recommend approval
of the housing mitigation package to City Council.
Growth Management scoring
staff has scored the project and finds that the minimum thresholds
required by the Land Use Code have been met. The Commission may
elect to accept staff's score and forward this project to City
Council for allocation of the dwelling unit. staff's score summary
follows:
Minimum
Cateqorv Threshold
staff
Score
1. Public Facilities 4.8
7
2. Quality of Design 4.8
10
3. Energy Conservation 2.4
5
4. Prox. to Support Services 2.4
5
5. Provision for Afford. Housing 7
7.4
Total Points
34.4
Pursuant to section 8-106(D) (7) a development application shall be
required to meet the thresholds of each category and combined
categories to be eligible for an allocation. Combined minimum
threshold for categories 1-4 above is 33.6 points. This project
scored 34.4.
6
~
-
",
'-~
r""\
-.....",",
This project meets the minimum threshold scores established in the
Land Use Code. The Commission may accept staff's score or prepare
your own score. Blank score sheets will be provided at the
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
this application subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall place the following note on the final
plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access
easement. No road cut off King street is permitted for
"Lot I."
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3 .
The applicant shall
agreement to the City
Final Plat.
submit a
Engineer,
sidewalk, curb and gutter
prior to recordation of the
4. A housing mitigation program for 1. 75 employees must be
approved by city Council and appropriate deed restrictions or
payments must be completed, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
5. The right-of-way width to be granted by the applicant shall
be resolved, prior to recordation of the Final Plat.
6. The name of the subdivision shall remain the Astor
SUbdivision, as there is already a Billings Subdivision within
the City.
7. The applicant shall submit a Final Plat and SUbdivision/PUD
Agreement within 90 days of City Council review, for review
and approval by the City Attorney, city Engineer, and Planning
Office.
8.
All material representations made by the applicant
application and public meetings shall be adhered
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise
by other conditions.
in the
to and
amended
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to score the Billings Residential
Growth Management Project at 34.4 points, finding that all required
thresholds have been met. I further move to recommend approval for
the SUbdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption, and Housing Mitigation
package to City Council with the conditions recommended in the
Planning Office memo dated January 4, 1994."
7
II.
f"""
'-'
-,
-...;
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District referral memo
"CD - City Engineering Department referral memo
"D" - Housing Office referral comments
apz.gmqs.billings
8
~
c
'"'
'-~
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMQS COMPETITION
project: Billinqs
Date: 01/04/94
1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 12
points)
Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services, by
the assigning of points according to the following standards
and considerations.
o -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public
facilities and services at increased public expense.
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and services, or any public facility service
improvement made by the applicant benefits the proposed
development only, and not the area in general.
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public
facilities and services in the area.
a. WATER SERVICE (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability
of the water supply system to serve the proposed
development as well as the applicant's commitment to
install any potable water facility extensions or
treatment plant, or other facility upgrading required to
serve the proposed development.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: The pro;ect can be served bv existinq facilities.
No improvements to the infrastructure are proposed bv the
applicant.
b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points): considering the
ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development as well as the applicant's
commitment to install any sanitary sewer extensions or
treatment plant, or other facility upgrading required to
serve the development.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:
There is adequate line and treatment capacitv to
ff\
c
~
,-",.."I
serve this pro;ect.
The surcharqe required for connection to
the ACSD lines is required of all new development.
c. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points): considering the degree
to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic
drainage patterns on the development site. If the
proposed development requires use of the City's drainage
system, consideration of the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and
to maintain the system over the long-term shall be made.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to meet the requirements of
the city Code. The applicant has not made a commitment that
merits a hiqher score.
d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points): considering the
ability of the fire department to provide fire protection
according to its established response standards without
the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the
adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for
providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which
may be necessary to serve the project.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:
The fire district has indicated that they can
adequately serve this pro;ect without any facility upqrades.
e. PARKING DESIGN (maximum 2 points): Considering the
provision of adequate off-street parking spaces to meet
the needs of the proposed development, pursuant to the
requirements of Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering their
visual impact, the amount of paved surface, and the
convenience and safety of the spaces provided.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: The applicant is proposinq to provide one space per
bedroom for the free market unit and one space for the
affordable housinq unit. This meets the minimum requirements
2
\'J
c
~
,
,oJ'
of the Aspen Land Use Requlations.
staff does not believe the
parkinq desiqn warrants a score above 1. as it is a standard
desiqn.
f. ROADS (maximum 2 points): considering the capacity of
major roads to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a need
to extend the existing road network. Considering the
applicant's commitment to install the necessary road
system improvements to serve the increased usage
attributable to the development.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: The applicants commitment to construct a new road
cut to the newly created lot improves safety to Kinq Street
road users.
This restriction shall be noted on the plat.
2. Quality of Design (maximum 12 points)
Each Development Application shall be rated based upon its
site design and amenities by the assigning of points for
neighborhood compatibility, site design, trails, and green
space, according to the following standards and
considerations.
o A totally deficient design
1 A major design flaw
2 An acceptable (but standard) design
3 An excellent design
a. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY (maximum 3 points):
considering the compatibility of the proposed development
(including its scale, siting, massing, height and
building materials) with the land uses in the surrounding
neighborhood.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: The applicant intends to sell the new lot once it
3
\\
l"""-
V
:)
is subdivided and has obtained a GMOS allocation. Since the
applicant is not proposinq to develop the lot herself. no
architectural information has been provided. All development
on the new property will be required to comply with the
dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district.
Staff
believes this is a standard desiqn.
b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points): Considering the quality
and character of the following components of the proposed
development: landscaping and open space areas; the amount
of site coverage by buildings; the extent to which
clustering of development is used to preserve key
features of the site; the amenities provided for
residents such as bike racks, recreation facilities, bus
shelters and similar improvements; the extent of
underground utilities; and the arrangement of
improvements for efficient circulation, including access
for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision
of snow storage areas.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:
The location of the proposed buildinq envelope is
sited to meet the dimensional requirements of the R-6 Zone
District.
No amenities are proposed with this development.
The applicant is proposinq to underqround utilities in an area
of town where they are still overhead.
This commitment bY
the applicant warrants a hiqher score.
c. TRAILS (maximum 3 points): considering the provision of
pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provision of links
to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The applicant has committed to ioin an improvement
district for construction of sidewalks, if one is ever formed.
Staff has requested that the applicant siqn a sidewalk
4
\1}-
c
'''''
....I
aqreement to construct a sidewalk at the insistence of the
city.
The Parks Department has reauested a 6 foot easement
alonq the Aspen ditch as it crosses this parcel. The
applicant committed to dedicate this easement to the city.
which entitles the applicant to a hiqher score.
d. GREEN SPACE (maximum 3 points): Considering the amount
of vegetated open space in the proposed development which
is usable by the residents of the proposed development,
and offers relief from the densities of surrounding
development.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:
The qreen space provided in this development
represents a standard desiqn.
This confiquration does not
merit a hiqher score.
3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 6 points)
Each Development Application shall be rated based on the
resource conservation techniques for energy, water and
wastewater, and air, by the assigning of points according to
the following standards and considerations.
o --
Proposed development fails
Municipal Code or does not
of resources
to meet the standards of the
result in a net conservation
1 --
Proposed development meets
Code or results in a
conservation
the standards of the Municipal
standard level of resource
2 --
Proposed development exceeds the standards
Municipal Code or results in an exceptional
resource conservation
of the
level of
a. ENERGY (maximum 2 points): Considering the extent to
which the proposed development will use passive and/or
active energy conservation techniques in its
construction, including but not limited to insulation,
glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating
and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent
to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy
5
\":l
c
J
by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed
development, relative to whether solar gain can be
expected to reasonably result in energy conservation.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:
Since no house plans have been prepared. no
calculation of enerqy conservation can be made. The applicant
has represented that they will meet the minimum requirements
of the model enerqy code. This represents a standard desiqn.
b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points): Considering the
extent to which the proposed development will use water
conservation techniques such as water conserving plumbing
fixtures or wastewater reuse systems or will conserve
surface water resources through irrigation, sprinkling,
ponding and similar site enhancements, and considering
whether the applicant dedicates water rights to the City
of Aspen.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:
The apPlicant has committed to provide low flow
water conservation devices in the new residence. however. such
devices are not defined.
In order for the applicant to
maintain this hiqher score. staff would like the applicant to
clarify the types of devises that will be provided at the
Planninq Commission meetinq.
c. AIR (maximum 2 points): considering the effect of the
proposed development on the city I s air quality, including
but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning
devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether
existing dirty burning devices will be removed or
replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust
prevention measures are employed on the unpaved areas;
and whether any special emission control devices are
used.
RATING: 2
6
\v...
c
o
COMMENTS:
The aDDlicant has clarified that the DroDosed
residence will exceed the air quality reauirements of the city
of ASDen. by Drohibitinq all woodburninq devices. The city
allows one certified woodstove in new develoDment.
This
commitment warrants a tOD score in this cateqory.
4. Proximity to support services (maximum 6 points)
Each Development Application shall be rated based on its
proximity to public transportation and community commercial
facilities by the assigning of points according to the
following standards and considerations:
a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (maximum 3 points):
1 -- Proposed development is located further than six
(6) blocks walking distance from an existing bus
route
2 -- Proposed development is located within six (6)
blocks walking distance of an existing bus route
3 -- Proposed development is located within two (2) city
blocks walking distance of an existing bus route
RATING: -2--
b. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points):
1 -- Proposed development is located further than six
(6) blocks walking distance from the commercial
facilities in the city.
2 -- Proposed development is located within six (6)
blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities
in the city.
3 -- Proposed development is located wi thin two (2)
blocks walking distance of commercial facilities in
the city.
RATING: ----L-
For purposes of this section, one block shall be
equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear
distance. The Planning Agency office shall make
available a map depicting the commercial facilities in
7
I
\'?
r"
'-.....
.-
'....,/
the city to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
5. PROVISION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 20 points)
Each Development Application shall be assigned points for the
provision of affordable housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the
City, and with the provisions of Sec. 8-109.
ASSIGNMENT OF POINTS: Points shall be assigned as follows:
i) One (1) point shall be assigned for every five (5%)
percent of the proposed development that is restricted
to use by occupants meeting the low income price
guidelines and low income occupancy limitations;
ii) One (1) point shall be assigned for every ten (10%)
percent of the proposed development that is restricted
to use by occupants meeting the moderate income price
guidelines, and moderate income occupancy limitations;
iii) One (1) point shall be assigned for every twenty (20%)
percent of the proposed development that is restricted
to use by occupants meeting the middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
In order to determine what percent of the proposed
development is restricted to affordable housing, the
Commission shall compare the number of persons to be
housed by the proposed development with the number or
persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle
income housing using the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One-bedroom: 1.75 residents;
Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of
space
For the purposes of this section, the proposed
development shall be considered to include the number of
persons in the free market units plus those in the
employee units, regardless of whether employee housing
is provided on-site, off-site or via cash-in-lieu of
housing.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One (1) point for each five
(5) percent housed.
8
\~
I""
I""...-
:)
RATING: 7.4
COMMENTS:
The application indicates a Cateqorv #2. low
income. one-bedroom affordable housinq unit will be provided.
.
As a clarification the applicant is actuallv committinq to a
Cateqorv #1 unit. as the reference to Cateqorv #2 was a typo.
The applicant'.s commitment entitles the pro;ect to 7.4
points in this cateqorv.
b. Moderate Income Housing provided (One point for each ten
(10%) percent housed.
RATING: 0
COMMENTS: No Moderate (Cateqorv 2 or 3) housinq is proposed.
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One point for each twenty
(20%) percent housed.
RATING: 0
COMMENTS: No Middle (Cateqorv 4) housinq is proposed.
6.
BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points)
o
RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
POINTS
1.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
4.8
7
2.
QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.8
10
3.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES
2.4
5
4.
PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
2.4
5
5.
PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
7.0
7.4
6.
BONUS POINTS:
o
o
9
\'\
C :J
TOTAL POINTS: 34.4
Name of P&Z commission Member: Planninq Office
jtdas:wp:gmqs:ss.billings
10
~
E xh i i?f t"gJI-
Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation (])istlfict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
OEe Ii
Tele. (303) 925-3601
FAX #(303) 925-2537
Sy Kelly - Chairman
John J, Snyder - Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy.
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
December 1.5. 1993
i"1ary Lackner
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen. CO 81611
Re: Bi 11 ings Property GMQ,S
[)eaI' I"Jary:
At the rresent time
has sufficient line
deV8 1 opment. There
Oklahoma Flats area
from connection tee
dc've 1 cpmE~n t.
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
and treatment capacity to servp- this
are dlJwnstream line constraints in the
that we are eliminating with funds generated
surcharges. which would be applied to this
As usual service is
Distric~'s Rules and
District office. Once
can be issued through
connection fees.
contingent upon compliance with the
F{E,gulaT.ions. wnich are en file at the
detailed plans are available a tap permit
OlJf office which wi I i estimate thE.' tCLtai
F' I e3..::;e eEl [
if you have any questions.
Sincert:' 1 y.
'k ~_ ''^^- ,-;k.~- y
. l'
Brucf:~ r~iatherjy
Disi:::;:'ict r-lanaft,er
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
\~
/
,,,,,",
"'-,,/
.-"....
E><,h;J"f lie 11
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C!-tjC
Date: December 27, 1993
Re: Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD, and GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Storm Runoff - For the GMQS scoring, the application meets the minimum standards
of the Municipal Code.
This application is for a resubdivision of the Astor Subdivision which was approved
by the City Council on May 13, 1980. The storm runoff requirements of Section 24-7-
1004.C.4.f should have been applied to development on the parcels at that time. In any
event, storm runoff mitigation in accordance with the Code should be required for future
development on any and each of the proposed four lots. Additionally, we would like to
add the requirement that the development plans provide, during construction, for storm
runoff from soils exposed by excavation to be maintained on site and not released to the
Roaring Fork River or public rights-of-way.
2. Trash Storage - The final development plans for each parcel shall indicate on-site trash
storage locations.
3. Utilities - Any new transformers or utility pedestals must be located on easements on
the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way.
4. Ril!ht-of-way Width - The right-of-way widths of King Street were created when the
abutting properties were in the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. The City Engineering
Department records are incomplete concerning the right-of-way widths, but it appears from
the annexation map (The Smuggler Enclave Annexation, Drawing No. 540-44) that the
width varies and may be as narrow as 35 feet or less.
Section 24-7-1004.C.4.a(3) requires a right-of-way width of 60 feet for a local street
and 80 feet for a collector. (This has generally been interpreted to apply as 75 feet since
that is the typical dimension for the right-of-way widths in the historical platting of Aspen.)
King Street is at present a one-way street. There is no master plan for future right-
of-way widths for Aspen streets or for the eventual two-waying of King Street. However,
in the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan (Ped Plan), King Street is indicated
?r-O
,
I'"'
V
,..."
_/
both as a primary pedestrian route and as an off-road trail bikeway route. This should
be considered in determining desirable future right-of-way width. An additional
consideration in right-of-way width and use design is the need or plan for on-street
parking.
We recommend that the right-of-way width be enlarged to 60 feet and that
approximately 12.5 feet of right-of-way width be dedicated by the applicant. If additional
right-of-way width is desired, it is typical to acquire right-of-way dedication at the time of
subdivision. The are a great number of City land use applications which have provided
for right-of-way dedication in the past.
The breakdown on right-of-way use dimensions is as follows:
2 sidewalks at 5' wide . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10'
2 vehicle travel lanes at 12' wide ....... 24'
2 "lanes" of on-street parking at 8' ... . .. 16'
2 buffer spaces at 2' wide . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4'
1 bicycle lane at 6' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6'
Total .......................... 60'
As can be seen, this layout does not provide for the typical West End buffer spaces
between property line and sidewalk (7.5') and between sidewalk and curb (5'). Presumably
the street will remain one way with the addition of 12' of buffer space to the design. If
one draws a 75' wide right-of-way, which would be about a 20' widening on each side,
the right-of-way line would fall at the doorstep of the existing duplexes.
5. Encroachments - There is a split rail fence located on the City-owned Garrish Park
parcel. It is not clear if the fence belongs to the applicant or to the City. There is also
a split rail fence along the front of Garrish Park on King Street, however the fences on
the interior of the applicant's property are split rail as well. I suspect that the fence
belongs to the applicant. There is also a fence encroaching into the King Street right-
of-way. The applicant may apply for an encroachment license, but it would be preferable
to encumber future development on any of the lots with the requirement that fences be
relocated onto the applicant's property at the time of development/redevelopment.
6. Irrigation Ditches - The final plat must indicate easement widths for the irrigation
ditches together with letters from the ditch companies accepting the proposed easement
widths. If the City owns water rights in the Molly Gibson ditch, we may be concerned
about the use of ditch water for a pond.
7. Sidewalk Curb & Gutter - We recommend that construction of sidewalk be required
at the time of development in order to meet the requirements of the Ped Plan. This
requirement is also consistent with Section 19-98 of the Municipal Code.
Generally, we do not require or permit the construction of segments of curb and
gutter because of the need for comprehensive neighborhood design for storm runoff. As
provided for in the Code, we would require an agreement to .construct curb and gutter at
such time as deemed necessary by the City.
')\
I
,-
'-
"
-..J
8. Slope Density Calculations - The accuracy of the slope density calculations must be
substantiated by the signature and stamp of a registered architect, surveyor or engineer.
9. Street Iil!bt - The Ped Plan does not indicate that this area is targeted for street lights,
however it should be noted that the Neighborhood Advisory Committee is increasingly
interested in improved street lighting as a night-time pedestrian enhancement. Chapter
24 provides for requiring street light installation at the time of subdivision. It may be
appropriate to require installation of an antique street light at this time or to require an
agreement to install one at such time as deemed appropriate by the City.
10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
11. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-
of-way, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M93.291
~f)-
. .
o.
E.Xh"b;t~,p ....,.
0- J6', ~La.~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Planning Office
Tom Baker, Housing OffiC~~C7
TO:
DATE:
November 23, 1993
RE:
Referral Comment: Billings Residential GMQS, Subdivision,
PUD and GMQS Exemption
REFERRAL COMMENTS: It appears that this application is only
required to mitigate for affordable housing for the Residential
GMQS portion of the application and not subdivision or PUD.
The applicant proposes to provide a one-bdrm, low income (category
#1) unit attached or detached to the principle dwelling unit on Lot
1. This unit must be a minimum of 600 net livable square feet and
be deed restricted prior to the issuance of a building permit for
Lot 1.
There is a typo on page 13. The last sentence of paragraph 2
indicates Category #2: this should read Category #1.
Additionally, section 8-106(E) (5) (b) (iii) should be amended to)"l\.bt;"
reflect that for each bdrm in excess of three, the occupancy ..A,
standard increases by .5 residents. Please see page 17 of the l)U-V .
Affordable Housing guidelines. Since the Land Use Code supersedes
the Guidelines, the application meets our requirements.
1
?-~
-^
"....
/"'-
,.)
fvtc
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1993 RESIDENTIAL GMQS APPLICATIONS (CITY OF ASPEN)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, January 4, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, CO to score the 1993 city of
Aspen Residential Growth Management Quota system applications. One
application was received for this competition. It is described
below.
1. BILLINGS PROPERTY: C. L. Astor & company, c/o Mrs. Car la
Billings, 2727 DeAnza Road, Shore Drive #33, San Diego, CA
92109, is requesting an allocation for one single family
dwelling unit for the Billings property, which is located at
981, 985 and 995 King Street, Aspen, CO; Lots 1, 2 and 3,
Astor Subdivision. Approvals are requested for Subdivision
to create a new lot for the unit, PUD to vary the underlying
zone district's minimum lot area requirement, GMQS Exemption
for an on-site affordable housing unit, and vested property
rights.
For further information, contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 South Galena street, Aspen, CO (303) 920-
5106.
s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman
planning and zoning commission
Published in-The Aspen Times on Decemb~r 17, 1993.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
city of Aspen Account
C\Jhd ~~
(;J.(/5
<..1lJ
)
t:R~
~
/0
~
RE:
DATE:
c
:)
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Electric Department
Parks Department
Zoning Administration
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Streets Department
Aspen Fire Protection District
Energy Center
Mary Lackner, Planning Office
Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD and GMQS
Exemption
Parcel lD No. 2737-074-16-0011003
November 8, 1993
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Carla Billings.
Please return your comments to me no later than December 17.
The Design Review Committee will be meeting on December 9, at 3:00 p.m., 1st floor City
Council Chambers.
Thank you.
/f/o
(o/d'#lf~7S //7
/'/7'/ S- ./ / /'/' E--
c
/''''''
""..r'
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO
CC
Mary Lackner
Rebecca Baker
cc
George Robinson
From: Rebecca Baker
Postmark: Dec 28,93 4:05 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Billings Trail Easement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
Based upon our site visit, the Parks Dept is requesting a 12 foot
easement along the ditch on the south west corner of the property.
This appears to be a logical alignment based upon the natural
topography of the property and the close proximity to the house.
Thank you.
-------========x========-------
c
~
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO
Mary Lackner
CC
Larry Ballenger
From: Phil Overeynder
Postmark: Dec 16,93 11:04 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Billings GMQS Application Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
This will confirm that Aspen Water Department has the ability to
serve the above referenced project located within the City limits
from the existing 6 inch diameter line located in King Street. The
connection is subject to payment of the applicable utility
investment and connection fees. With respect to the applicant's
request for points for water conservation, it should be pointed out
that the applicant may be requiredby the State Engineer to compensate
for evaporative losses from the existing pond. Awarding points for
conservation of the pond would require verification of water rights.
-------========x========-------
.
!
I
'8.
neo u'plonned
I p" r'#p 1 0 ~ i 0 \ \ \ ion
i!\JtI r: s ~ ~ p 0 r \ 0
o !}-\ r 0 I'
I ~f'i, 0' i--r c
J , J ~
.' i< o~ "'() ~~
~ > 'P .() 'Cl J)~
~ p~ "
,,< 4~ ";~~~ \ \:
FJ~ , ~~ :y~~ ~
' ~<f!i I ~ ~ ~"-.~
"~~~)~~ J',~ ~'~~~1)
~ -~ 0,,1'-.':: h'h,~ \
. . ~~,. -<<'o."':.~fk~~j.;l~ 'iI
~:~~, ~~~ L:J~ ~~":~""~".t-..';;jfNI1~~'.'.~~~
-"', ~~\~"1 ,"~ 'I 0 "O"~~~il;" \J," 'v
";I~ J.. ~~f ,_'"~ i\:~ ::s~, ~~~~i\~,
'~. < '\~ j \\~,. ~ 6;;J l.....;! , v',,,\.
'" 00".... . 0 Jb "'" "
" · "'<t,., r \5"'-' · 0" IT n K ~r::
0." \'1 "'" .' ~ <J~ ~ ~ . 0' "" ;:"''',
~ 1111 . , GO _ W ,PZ . , . ~" , "
'k 'IT \ fJM,,,,,,..,, '{}" , ,
. ". .. c?~ t'" "''''' ""'"/!l \~ " or;
, ", 'U~ un
0, ~ " o~o .^ . , . " \ I
.~\'t} D Q' a{) f!, I 90.. 0 . <? _ D ,,~
;:'i a c >7::,;~\. ...".f'!;: \ 0 '0<.:, \ 0 ~
" c' "~<: ~}f0 "\ ()~~-, \l t
'00"1/5 '" ''0, ..~ ~ D'{J~ C:lQ\~'" ~ f'-..--
r;,<, VI', I 'fA '7'fZJ. '" C .R n;;r 'b\\~'/l<ov,.;JSo<;J
.' ,,"'4 '%,1,,, . "''''>1,/, /., '" o'L'4n~/<,), ~-15~ ~~
'" "/'7 ."",/ ~~!1;J .<.~ ~%:z.. ~;F "' .~ CJ'\ "
~ "0~~'(II.::', '. · . .:;"~ ";:';; .;'!@ _~,'.>~ d "Iii\' fd:Q ~ Co. \ ~
WI J5,,'. '. ;" 7",; """ I.rr-r " /j ,If''u, "~'ll'iJ ~ G "
,r '77 " . . '. "lJi '.j-/ .' , n 0<;] U'U~.~
. JiIl5?i . I! . (,J r ~ 7" 'Q
'i i . ; of ,; tjiZ::rrJl~/,, ' . ' '", ~~1lJ. I "'39 ~ fJ!,~~\rv()QO;J 0.() '0 0 >>0 ~
W's-;~/. .7 .', 7-,,' ", -'0,!'!!fi;!lI\ _ Iffl!1U." 0 ,(0 ,JtI{\0, ....'(! u (] ."." eo
r/c..'::>~ f"",.F'.'Y/7/" IJ'" '" ''-'",,,, _" "/>
' ,....', eel': /.'" " _Ira "8__,. 7'0 q ,,0 "D 00 u
"'>;. 1'-; ,', " V;zj/m :'tf'fl/;;Gln" 'IM:&W I1J5i,J; jj{ Q . 01 ';] a ~ <> ,f!,
/YN," . . . "", I" .11 . 'C'I / . ~/""" 4-,1 cc _ _ ,_ \/ <)
::'>>'.0: n:~III'n ,liIT' , . it;" '~hA/)1;)~" ~n;;-. :!> ,,," Q
'. ';III, m,., '. / . ~'l'le; ti'lA oD rR;.~, IW 00 ~~o
... '" , ,I;' ...." "1I.l r; , , , .~ ", ~',v 'y" Wd " pi U n
flf'i ""~V':IV"'\WI;"~:k~' "bJy, H ~. ,~ ~ p';i\'.. _" <;1 U ~
'\ ~ \rl~ .t: ""'/''> , '''if 'K = 0 u ~'''@;" "I
' " !'lJ f'1 " '" ~~'" ,. '~/>O %"",~,~ '"
1/\1' '\ I, I L,~, f1 //})~, ~\ TTi'Y" ,"t o/, Li> IV" ~JG'-) / / I ~ ~\ v ~ol ~ ~~O\\ ':0.
'\' , if, '-'-(.-// /, "/W." , ~ \'I 0'''''''''"''01:: 0 U Ci <;::
" ' . "T!i. / ;/ /J c' , ' I : i,v ;; c ~:'Pa"'" ~ l7>5JDQ &~p"", 9c, I ~ 'I. 0 0 ,v 01 0, .::\ JJ
';;' 'T,,~ '//1' ''', ,> '- ~ "\'J () 0
~~'" ~i ~~~~&h ~.:". ~'\\;{JP1sf." "J C:-Qb_CJ~~ 6~
fJi;!,. j , ~///'1" 1'~ , . '" i -X. 0 . ,,-' (7" [j ~
~k ~~?Ol "o.'u C0 'iJ <J 'jR'/' . .. "" ~ .
,tr p~ / ~ ///~~) C'> O()<b <;) rDA?'-&iI~~ ~\Sb 'O?_
Y. ~~ //~ c::, 0 <J "- JI ~:)~'~'CI:'\l "--",
,~ c/;/; W~..: ~ _ 1 5 P l~ OJ:;?),:;,!,;:;:~~ "'" c;:;J 0 'V\ ~~ ~ \J 0
~ ./ ~ 7)' - \ ~>' /" 'r-J Al" __/;".'; ;'h;' ..\..../,. >.10< _ , . ~ _ ,,""""-
-v , '>'... v.... >. " '''".. , . ~\
^' / , "'''' <"- ". " '" " , . h ;~ ,', I
.( "''t( ... /'0 '-( ~ ,,'-<. /<", ~ '~ "'"~,,, >"1 ru. \ \
V"r< > , "', ),'~: ,v'. "h,' ", < '. ,
.... ",v "'.<'./</Y'<;"~A:>~R ~ ~'-' i'I,,;
-" I C7 . """".
~ i:., '0 "-C:-:;,S;.', '~ - /l _
ff.dfp~. \~~L I
Of:::::J
o
\ \
(
\
~
,
l'
I
~
00 '= D
?30 P.lI 0
~ "';<.
'v
".
>..'
~
~" ~~
/!j'"~..""."~ ~
~ 6!: "
R;i~P
Cb (~I W'" ',"...<e-:?
l
l
?Il
'.
>
'Of)'
t?
^~':
n
~/'n;
. r,
.v
''^
" ,
, >
11 v,;
.1".
~(
-
(( ~
i'?o .~,
~ t ~
~
>>
(i
~
\
, I (j 1/
~nr,-
="
v "
'-
-'~, for0-t~ k'1~ st. lW2.d(~
\/\i
c, 000 16 q OOC> 1l' f'S
OOD
Q..-(O 3~4o 3 ~ (00 40a.Of;
(2.-(" 3a4o 4050 ~S-OO
(Z-l<) d\ ~.;z4o 40 <82> .qsnotzl
\2.-(0 Q&Vel''''l~ge,() - qOOD r;>I- Lot" -t- a -S'FO'S (LA-Y'W~(t~)
"Z 0""' '''} ~r'-
co .....eo tt.o '\ S fe, K.OIl - w"-6o("..,.o7
c,oooJl> qoo 1P l~rD
~1~i'){1 fL-G, 3(.:,00 4080 4440
g-IS"' 3<000 -'l S" DC -,\q~o
12.-1)'/1 scooc 45""00 ~qQ{{)
~
g-~
~ 91 (~ -::> 8000" - qooo ~ lo+
do.. s PO -'"7 pa.tlw....~ '{ ()OO~ 00{" fu.O~
12- I,S- -")
d.vf I.u,( -'>
15ca>(/>
10,0000'
~ S\.loJ ilA.t~
p;;w Ll^\ t
by 4/.;2f) (-,5'.
Cd)fL.erw~)
Q.-'IS PI -"") ci.J..p1 w -~ tf' ~o1o 15 AF,
Lft (.sq/kl. 4.C 12 - I r).
('''
.....,
"'. --"
;"
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
OF
C. L. ASTOR & CO.
A partnership was created by an agreement dated
October 17, 1979, as amended, between CARLA LEONE ASTOR and
DEANE BILLINGS, as partners.
The partners hereby modify and amend said agreement in
its entirety so that said agreement is as follows:
~
THIS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT is made and entered into
between the undersigned parties on the date indicated, and
any and all other persons who may hereafter, under the terms
hereof, become parties hereto. The parties to this agree-
ment, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agree-
, '
ments herein contained, do hereby agree as follows:
1. Members. There is hereby formed a partnership
consisting of the undersigned as partners, and such other
parties as from time to time by consent of a majority of
the then partners may be admitted to membership.
2. Name. The name of the partnership is C. L. ASTOR
& CO.
3. Place of Business. This is a Colorado partner-
ship. The location of the principal place of business of
~ .
r ,
,
~,
!
, f
~
>
f
r
,
,
r ~
c t
1
c
8
the partnership shall be 981 King Street, Aspen, Colorado
81611.
4. Purpose. The purpose of the partnership shall be
to hold legal or registered title to stocks, bonds and other
securities and property, whether real or personal and wher-
ever situate, whether in any of the states or in foreign
countries, and to endorse, assign, convey and redeliver such
property, assets or securities as nominee or ~gent (other
than as commission agent or broker) of the parties who are
now, or may hereafter become parties to this agreement.
5. Capital. The partnership shall have no capital.
6. Duration. The partnership shall begin on the date
hereof and shall continue ~ntil terminated as provided
herein. The partnership may be terminated by the agreement
of all of the then existing partners. A partner may with-
draw upon thirty days' written notice to the other partners.
A partner who becomes physically or mentally incapacitated
shall thereupon cease to be a partner. The death, with-
drawal or incapacity of a partner shall not cause any inter-
ruption in the conduct or continuity of the business of the
partnership. In the event of the death, withdrawal or inca-
pacity of a partner, the surviving or continuing partners
shall immediately and forthwith, without any further act,
become a new partnership under the same name and shall
-2-
c
o
succeed to all of the rights and property of the previously
existing partnership, and all of the terms and provisions of
this agreement shall apply to and govern such new partner-
ship. In the event there shall be only one surviving or
continuing partner at any time, such partner shall have the
right to either terminate the partnership and distribute its
assets to or as directed by the beneficial owners thereof,
or to admit a new partner or partners and forthwith continue
as a new partnership under the same name and upon the terms
and provisions of this agreement. In the event of the death
or incapacity of ail of the partners, any principal for
which the partnership may be acting as agent or nominee may
select and designate either (a) two or more partners to
continue the partnership, or (b) a person or entity who or
which shall have and is hereby granted all powers necessary
for the sole purpose of terminating the partnership and
distributing its assets as hereinafter provided. A partner
who dies, withdraws or becomes incapacitated shall have no
interest in the partnership name nor in the property of the
partnership. Upon final termination of the partnership, qll
of the partnership assets shall be accounted for and
forthwith transferred and delivered to the principal or
principals for whose account such assets were being held at
the time of such termination, or in such manner as such
principal or principals may direct.
-3-
J
~ f"
ii
:(
1
...
''!
)
';~.
'.
.~
{
}
'~
.~~
,/
'\
c
o
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands as of the day and year first above written.
---<>
,
, " / "","?',"). ( (, "
/~:x/.;-\~ ,
CARLA LEONE BILLINGS, Sett or
" ,
x:.../. " ./y:j
. Le.' \_ ~." /( J~. /"'-).~ { I. : : [ "
CARLA LEONE BILLINGS, Trust. e
f' /
(- . ~ J.,. '.\_ '-,,' i': / )-.,--:
Trustee'
--"_t"": 1 -,-,--
DEANE VERNON BILLINGS,
~ ~ ~d-.
AN HO 'SCOTT GORDO~,
Trustee
~
C. L. ASTOR & CO.,
a Partnership
By: 0'::'-"" (,I /, ,_,
CARLA LEONE BILLINGS,
1-:; .
p~);:n~~~) ,
STATE OF COLORADO
)
) ss.
)
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this L day of ;t.0('-"'-..~ f....,"'., 19.h, by CARLA LEONE
BILLINGS and DEANE VERNON BILLINGS.
Witness my hand and official seal.
'~
My commission expires
o
BUCHANAN AND THOMAS
Professional Corporation
141 Union BOUlevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
-4-
.
I
.
o
:>
EXHIBIT 4
:""'::"':'ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ,c:;::::.~.~/oI'1 ~ C~.
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
~ ~nL7/T7~ ~/-4'S~ct"~~-nc;L-/
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application,
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
.
o
()
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of applica.9P9-r.o'-
completeness, ~LICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $~ ~
which is for~ hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, in.eJuding post appr<;lVal review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 day~ of tlre-billiI)g ):la~e.:::ArPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
APPLICANT
By: ~{()~.. "
Diane Moore
City Planning Director
f" ~ '.. .......
By:' Vl~J"f<,' . -, :b"'
. Mailing Address: ~
9%/ /~ S?'-
Date: .Jo/;;.s-lf3
, /
2
c
""'\
/
~
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Electric Department
Parks Department
Zoning Administration
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Streets Department
Aspen Fire Protection District
Energy Center
Mary Lackner, Planning Office
Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD and GMQS
Exemption
Parcel ID No. 2737-074-16-001/003
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
November 8, 1993
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Carla Billings.
Please return your comments to me no later than December 17.
The Design Review Committee will be meeting on December 9, at 3:00 p.m., 1st floor City
Council Chambers.
Thank you.
."~
...../
~
'''';
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197
November 5, 1993
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
230 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD and GMQS
Exemption
Case A65-93
Dear Sunny,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned
application. We have determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, January 4, 1993
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you
please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After
that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or
tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical
problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you
that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the
Planning Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners
within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10)
days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted
sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the
public hearing.
All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review Committee
(DRC). The DRC is a committee of referral agencies which meet with Planning
and the applicant early in the process to discuss the application. This case
is scheduled for December 9, 1993 at 3:00 p.m., City Hall, City Council
Chambers.
If you have any questions, please call Mary Lackner, the planner assigned to
your case, at 920-5106.
Sincerely,
f~
Suzanne L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant
..
"'..
;-
-
--
AMENDED SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR
LOTS 1,2,3 AND 4, ASTOR SUBDIVISION, FIRST AMENDED PLAT
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
THIS AGREEMENT is made this :;;. '? day of ~/~.I , 1994, between C.L.
ASTOR & CO., a partnership (the "Owner") and TIlE TY OF ASPEN, a municipal
corporation (the "City").
RECITALS
.
WHEREAS, Owner owns that certain re~ property (the "Property") located in the
City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, which shall be legally described as:
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Astor Subdivision, First Amended Plat,
Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Owner had previously subdivided the property into a three (3) lot
subdivision, known as the Astor Subdivision, which Plat is recorded in Plat Book 9 at Page
67, records of Pitkin County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 1994, the City Council of the City of Aspen, by
Ordinance No. 4-94 granted approval pursuant to Sections 24-7-1004,24-7-903 and 24-6-
207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the "Code") for the re-subdivision of the
Astor Subdivision creating one (1) new lot for development purposes, providing PUD
approval and GMQS exemption for one (1) on-site affordable housing unit, and vesting
property rights status for the project; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 1994, the City Council of the City of Aspen, by
Resolution No. 8-94 granted a GMQS allotment for one (1) single-family dwelling unit for
the newly created Lot 1; and
WHEREAS, the approval of such re-subdivision by the City was conditioned upon
the Owner complying with certain requirements, including the entering into and execution
of a Subdivision Agreement for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and
recordation an amended subdivision plat for the Property (the "Plat") and the City agrees
to approve, execute and record the Plat on the agreement of the Owner to the matters
described herein, subject to the provisions of the Code and other applicable rules and
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with
its approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat and such matters as are necessary to
protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and pursuant to the
Code, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters set forth herein will be faithfully
performed by the Owner and the Owner's successors and assigns; and
-
(I') 1:....1
I-I....J
r...
< l~
HCl'
D-J)
o
D
<q;
H ,
rn -.j
l~
-I>
>:!
I
'jJ
-J)
-0 ....J
H
-I
A C:.
HO'-
Z'-
t..J
0(0
0'-
C-J)
Z-I>
-I
-< c'
,jJ
0"
r-l>
f1l l~
::0"1.1
>:!
~~<> (j)
;JJ'"
f1l
o
o
;JJO
0'1
f1l
;JJ l~
~.) ::rJ
Lfl ni
. 0
o
o
n
,.'"
'"",.....
WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to enter into such agreement with the City and
to provide assurances to the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,
and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is
agreed as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Descriotion of Subdivision. The Subdivision which the City Council approved
consists of amending the Astor Subdivision Plat by adding a newly created Lot 1, which
amended subdivision shall consist of four (4) duplex lots in the R-6 Zone district. The
Owner of Lot 1 shall be permitted to construct a single-family, free market residence,
within the building envelope depicted on the Plat, together with an attached or detached,
one bedroom affordable housing unit, subject to compliance with the conditions of this
Agreement and with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district applicable
to a duplex lot.
2. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this agreement by all parties hereto,
the City agrees to approve and execute the first amended plat for the Astor subdivision
submitted herewith and reduced-size copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A,
which conforms to the requirements of Section 7-1004 of the Code. The City agrees to
accept such plat for recording in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, upon
payment of the recordation fee and cost to the City by Owner.
3. GMOS Exemption. The conditions for granting a GMQS Exemption for Lot
1 are set forth as follows:
A.
The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions for a one
bedroom, Category 1 affordable housing unit to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority for approval, prior to issuance of any
building permits for Lot 1. Upon approval by the Housing Authority,
the Owner shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Prior to issuance of any building permits for Lot 1, a copy of the
recorded deed restrictions for the new dwelling unit must be forwarded
to the Planning Office.
The deed restrictions for Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the original Astor
subdivision affecting one-half (112) of the existing duplexes as set forth
in the Subdivision Agreement recorded in Book 388 at Page 852,
records of Pitkin County, shall remain in full force and effect.
D. All material representations made by the owner in the application
and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council shall be considered conditions of approval, unless
amended by other conditions.
B.
C.
4. Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Approval. The conditions for
approval of the Amended Subdivision and Planned Unit Development are set forth as
follows:
0J
-.J
....
tn
0-
..0
IJ)
I
-.J
tn
./>
"1)
I
':-4
..0
ill
(i.
"
t..)
ill
"
..0
./>
':-4
..
./>
tn
"1)
"1)
GJ
t..J
o
TI
tn
~
,. ,
" ,
A. The owner shall place the following note on the final plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access easement. No
road cut off King Street is permitted for Lot 1."
B. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior to
issuance of a building permit.
c.
The owner shall construct a sidewalk along Lot 1 of the Astor
Subdivision, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
new residence. The owner shall sign a sidewalk, curb, and gutter
agreement prior to the execution and recording of the Final Plat.
The right-of-way width to be granted by the owner shall be acceptable
to the City Engineer and indicated on the Final Plat.
The name of the subdivision shall be the Astor Subdivision, First
Amended Plat.
D.
E.
F.
The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the minimum lot
area of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 have been varied pursuant to Section
24-7-903 (B) (4). The total lot area of all lots within the subdivision
exceeds the minimum lot area requirements for the zone district for
duplex lots.
The owner shall pay their fair share of paving and improving the
access easement with all lots which use this easement.
G.
H.
The electric utility line located in the proposed Lot 1 building envelope
shall be relocated and placed underground at the expense of the Lot
1 property owner.
The Astor subdivision shall be restricted from further subdivision which
results in no more than four lots.
I.
J. All material representations made by the owner in the application
and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council shall be considered conditions of approval, unless
amended by other conditions.
5. Vesting of Ril!hts. The rights granted by the approved site specific
development plan shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption
of Ordinance 4-94. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant
to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely
and properly record all plats and agreements as specified therein or in the Municipal Code
shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights.
The approval granted shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review.
Nothing in the approvals provided by Ordinance 4-94 shall exempt the site
specific development plan from subsequent reviews and/or approvals required by this
Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such
reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approval granted and vested herein.
':..1
-J
<-'
01
()-
-lJ
III
I
-J
lij
-l>
lJ
I
':..1
-lJ
-lJ
()-
"-
I,,)
ill
"-
-lJ
-I>
0J
-I>
(,1
lJ
lJ
Gl
':..1
o
."
1Il
",
..
.r ''>.,
"'-,,'"
The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the
application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to
all properties subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including but not limited
to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition
of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted
in writing.
6. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by United States certified mail
to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute
in writing.
To the Owner:
C.L. Astor & Co., a Partnership
c/o Mrs. Carla Billings
2727 DeAnza Road, Shore Drive #33
San Diego, CA 92109
To the City of Aspen:
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
with a copy to:
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
7. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and
constitute a burden on the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding on and
inu!e to the benefit of the Owner's and the City's successors, personal representatives and
assIgns.
8. Amendment. This agreement may be altered or amended only by written
instrument executed by the parties.
9. Severability. If any of the provisions of this agreement are determined to be
invalid, it shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof.
Attest:
THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal
corporation
OM- ~~~~
JOHI'i~ENNETI
~u~
KATHRYNPO -
'A
-.J
...
en
(}-
.{)
ttl
I
-.J
en
~
0)
I
~
, ,
0:-
'-
t'.J
(J)
'-
.{)
~
'A
~
en
0)
0)
Ul
~
o
"
en
1 "'I..
".......
"'""'"
Approved as to form:
'/~/~
bty orne
BY: gA/t..a:v~
Carla Billings, General Partner
C.L. Astor & Co., a Partnership
STATE OF COLORADO}
} ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN }
Aok"~l"'g,d b"~ moon thl, Qq//. dn, of ~L e... '
by John Bennett, Mayor, and Katherine ~City Clerk.
M C .. . My (lumIIliIIlo'I..... 9/'l1[96
y ommlsslon expires:
.1994
Witness my hand and official seal.
~~<)~ JJ:41~
No ry Public < ...... .
. "
Acknowledged before me this (f I day of SU V\)2- ~!!. ",1094
by Carla Billings, General Partner for C.L. Astor & CO.. I,..,. . .
My Commission expires: MA'i f?) Vi q '1
Witness my hand and official seal.
rrr@.,..o>e'C'ALSEAL II
.....'.'. .--'" KAREN A. MAGUIRE
'7:. MOTNffPUBUC-CAUFORMIA ill
g :r" ~ . COMMISSION NUMBER 994849 !
a: ,~" PfItiCIPAlCffICflHlMDlEGOCOUlTV
<:-. '.0 MYCOfIIMISSIOHWotlAY'S.'9'l711
I:. .... .-J
~ ~. - - ' -
(,J
-.J
,...
lij
0-
..0
ro
I
-.J
lij
.,.
1]
I
.,.
.-.
0-
"-
t..J
ro
"-
..0
.,.
. ,
IA
.,.
lij
1]
1]
G1
lij
o
'1
lij
""""
'-'
SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTIER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ASPEN AND C.L. ASTOR & CO.
WHEREAS, C.L. Astor & Co., a Partnership, is the owner of real property located at
981, 985 and 995 King Street in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, more
specifically described as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Astor Subdivision, First Amended Plat (hereinaf-
ter "Owner"); and
WHEREAS, Owner's property is within a zone district or other area as designated on
the City of Aspen sidewalk, curb and gutter plan requiring construction of sidewalk, curb
and gutter prior to issuance of a Certificate of occupancy or, in lieu thereof, an agreement
for future construction pursuant to Section 19-100 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Owner is required pursuant to City Council Ordinance 4, Series of 1994,
to construct sidewalk within the public right-of-way adjacent to Lot 1 prior to the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy for any residence to be constructed thereon; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer does not recommend the construction of sidewalk
adjacent to Lots 2 and 3, or curb and gutter adjacent to Lots 1, 2 and 3, at this time due to
existing improvements or conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Owner, its grantees, successor or assigns, agrees to construct sidewalk meeting City
specifications within the public right-of-way adjacent to Lot 1 (approximately ninety
ninety feet) prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any residence to be
constructed thereon. Owner, its grantees, successor or assigns further agrees to
construct sidewalk along the frontage of Lots 2 and 3 (approximately one hundred
and sixty-five feet), and curb and gutter along the frontage of Lots 1, 2 and 3
(approximately two hundred and fifty-five feet), together with any associated asphalt
work, at such time as the City of Aspen deems construction necessary and feasible.
It is acknowledged by all parties that the present requirements is for a two (2) foot
gutter, a six (6) inch vertical curb, and a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk with five
(5) foot snow storage between sidewalk and curb.
2.
In the alternative, at the City's option, the City may construct the above improve-
ments and Owner, its grantees, successor or assigns, shall reimburse the City for all
costs of such construction. Reimbursement shall be made to the City within ninety
(90) days after receipt of invoice.
3.
In the event that the City determines that sidewalk shall be constructed on one side
of the street only, and if that side is Owner's side of street, Owner, its grantees,
successor or assigns, agrees to pay to construct the sidewalk with reimbursement of
half the cost at a later date if the property across the street from Owner is developed.
If the City determines that the sidewalk shall be constructed across the street from
01(..1
.-. ~J
r...
< tq
.-.--.1
DO
o
D
<w
.-.1
01 -.J
tq
.;.
-n
1-
.;.
o
-u t,)
.-.
-j
"A 0
HO'-
z....
t.)
om
0....
c-o
z.;.
-j
-<:0
(..I
0"
r.;.
men
~-u
....~
-u
';'.0 Gl
;:0'"
rn
o
o
;:00
O"Tl
rn
;:0 t,)
...;:0
om
. 0
g
o
o
o
c
,.......
the Owner, Owner, its grantees, successor or assigns, shall participate in the cost of
the sidewalk in the amount of half of the cost.
U
-J
...
lq
-J
o
4.
This agreement shall be binding and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, assigns,
and successors in title of the parties hereto.
Entered into this :? ( day of
';:5''-'-71 0 1994.
lI1
I
-J
UI
..
C.L. ASTOR & CO., a Partnership
-0
I
..
o
C.l
By:
,....
0-
"-
t..)
lD
"-
-ll
..
Mailing Address:
Co
U
..
2727 DeAnza Road
Shore Drive #33
San Diego, CA 92109
..
lD
-0
-0
Gl
i'J
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNrY OF -5BJJ PIE;(r7J
)
) ss.
)
o
"T1
t..)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of June, 1994,
by Carla Billings.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: MJvIf 1-3 \ 11'1'7
Ir@",-_..~. ~SEAC~I
., :' KAREN A. MAGUIRE
fB ~ . NOTAR'fPUlllJC..CAUFORfrnA 61
(r ;., ~HIrIIMBfR 994&49 ~
PflfriapAl..(fFJCflNtNCllfEGOca.wrv ....
Ii '",::-..; IIY_..... "Y1~ ''':11
~(j.~
No ry Public
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, A Municipal Corporation
Approved as to form: ,/ ?t/ ~
2
~,
,..... "'"
ORDINANCE No.L
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING GMQS EXEMPTION I'CR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT FOR THE
BILLINGS RESIDENTIAL GMQS PROJECT, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
TO CREATE A HEW LOT IN THE ASTOR SUBDIVISION, PUD TO VARY
THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENT OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 3,
AND GRANTING VESTED RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS
FO~I THE DEVELOPKEHT LOCATED AT
98~, 985, AND 995 KING STREET
WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE ASTOR SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-8-104(C) (1) (c) of the Aspen
Municipa1 Code, city Council may exempt deed restricted affordable
housing units from Growth Management Quota System (GMQS)
competition; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-7-1004 (C) of the Aspen
Municipal Code, City Council grants final subdivision approval; and
WHEREAS, pursu1~t to Section 24-7-903 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City counci~ grants final approval for Planned unit
1': _:
Development Applications; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, city Council may grant vesting of development rights for a
site specific development plan for a period of three years from the
date of final development plan approval; and
WHEREAS, C.L. Astor and company and Mrs. Carla Billings
("Applicant"), as represented by sunny Vann, submitted an
application to the Planning Office requesting Subdivision, PUD, one
I'
residential GMQS aliotment and GMQS Exemption to resubdivide the
Astor Subdivision to create one new parcel and provide one on-site
affordable dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, the Astor Subdivision is zoned R-6 and affordable
-
,,-"....
,
Ordinance No.4
(Series of 1994)
Page 2
housing is permitted use in this zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning commission considered the
applicant's request at a public hearing on January 4, 1994, and
approved growth management scoring and recommended approval for the
SUbdivision, PUD and GMQS Exemption as outlined in Planning and
Zoning commission Resolution 93-34; and
WHEREAS, the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval to
City Council for the',GMQS Exemption for the development of one deed
restricted affordabie housing unit to the category 2 income level;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval to
City council for the proposed Subdivision and PUD, subject to the
conditions noted in. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 93-
I
34; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
SectioD 1:
That it does hereby grant GMQS Exemption for an
i
Affordable Housing units to be located on the newly created Lot 1
.it
of the Astor Subdivision pursuant to section 24-S-104(C) (1) (c) of
the Aspen Municipal 'Code.
,
SectioD 2:
The conditions of approval which apply to this GMQS
Exemption are:
1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions for a one
bedroom, category 1 affordable housing unit to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval, prior to
issuance of any building permits. Upon approval by the
Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed
'.'1
..--
, .....
Ordinance NO.4-
(Series of 1994)
Page 3
restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for Lot 1, a copy
of the recorded deed restrictions for the new dwelling unit
must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3.
All material representations made by
application and. during public meetings
zoning commission and city council
conditions of approval, unless amended
the applicant in the
with the Planning and
shall be considered
by other conditions.
section 3: Pursuant to section 24-7-1004(C) and section 24-7-903
of the Municipal Code, city council does hereby grant the applicant
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall place the following note on the final
plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access
easement. No road cut off King Street is permitted for Lot
1."
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the city Engineer, prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3. The applicant shall construct a sidewalk along Lot 1 of the
Astor SUbdivision, prior to the issuance of a certificate of
Occupuancy for the new residence. The applicant shall sign
a sidewalk, curb, and gutter agreement prior to the execution
and recording of the Final Plat.
4. The right-of-way width to be granted by the applicant shall
be acceptable to the city Engineer and indicated on the Final
Plat.
5. The name of the subdivision shall remain the Astor
Subdivision, as, there is already a Billings Subdivision within
the city.
6. The applicant shall submit a Final Plat and Subdivision/PUD
Agreement within 180 days of City Council review, for review
and approval by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Planning
Office. .
..,~...<
/"'''-~.
'"
/
Ordinance No.4
(Series of 1.994)
Page 4
7. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1., Lot 2 and Lot 3 have been varied
pursuant to Section 24-7-903 (B) (4). The total lot area of all
lots within the subdivision exceeds the minimum 1.ot area
requirements for the zone district.
S. The applicant !ishall pay their fair share of paving and
improving the ~ccess easement with all lots which use this
easement. , i
9. The electric utility line located in the proposed Lot 1.
building envelope shal1. be relocated and placed underground
at the expense of the Lot 1. property owner.
1.0. The Astor Subdivision shall be restricted from further
subdivision, which results in no more than four lots.
1.1..
All material representations made by
application and during public meetings
Zoning commission and city council
conditions of approval, unless amended
the applicant in the
with the Planning and
shall be considered
by other conditions.
section 4:
Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code,
city Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
I';
Billings/Astor subdivision site specific development plan as
follows:
1.. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and property record
all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the
Municipal Code, shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the" approvals provided by this Ordinance shall
exempt the sit~ specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and/or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
Ordinance No.4
(Series of 1994)
Page 5
general rules, regulations or ordinances of the city provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approval granted and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all properties
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all
such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
section 5: The city Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City
of Aspen, no later tHan fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
,
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice.
section 6:
A IlUbli~hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
of 1~1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the city Council
~ day
Chambers, Aspen city Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
Fifteen (15) days
prior to the hearing. a public notice of the hearing shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
,I ~
Aspen.
."
,.,
--
--"
"
Ordinance No.
(Series of 1994)
Page 6
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the c2;?' day Of~
~17~
John a nnett, Mayor
1994.
ATTEST:
~
Kathryn
1... FINALLY, adopted. passed and approved this c:9 g'
/~1994.
day of
~ /5~-
John B~nett, Mayor
,.
III
III
III
III
11Ioo
..
..
...
..
...
..
...
..
...
..
...
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
BilliNGS PROPERTY
RESIDENTIAL GMQS APPLICATION
...
..
...
..
NOVEMBER 1, 1993
""
..
..
..
..
..
""
..
.~
.-
H"
-
A RESIDENTIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM APPLICATION
FOR THE
BILLINGS PROPERTY
-
-
-
-
Submitted by
-
C. L. Astor and Company
% Mrs. Carla Billings
2727 DeAnza Road
Shore Drive #33
San Diego, CA 92109
(619) 270-8444
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,'-
Prepared by
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-6958
-
.-
-
-
-
-
..~
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
-
-
PLANNER
-
-
Sunny Vann, AICP
Vann Associates
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-6958
-
-
-
-
-
SITE DESIGN/GRAPHICS
-
Robert Nevins
520 East Cooper Avenue, #16
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-9188
-
-
-
CIVIL ENGINEER
-
Jay W. Hammond, P.E.
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
1001 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(303) 945-1004
-
-
-
SURVEYOR
-
David McBride
Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc.
210 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-3816
-
_.
-
-
-
-
-
.1
-
-
-
""...
-
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
- Section Page
-
- I. INTRODUCTION 1
-
- II. PROJECT SITE 3
- III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6
- A. Water System 8
B. Sewage System 8
C. Drainage System 9
~
D. Fire Protection 9
E. Development Data 9
F. Traffic and Parking 12
G. Affordable Housing 13
H. Stoves and Fireplaces 14
I. Location 14
J. Impact on Adjacent Uses 15
- K. Construction Schedule 15
- IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 16
A. Availability of Public Facilities 16
- and Services
.-
1. Water 16
- 2. Sanitary Sewer 17
-
11
-
,-
-
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
- Section Page
-
- 3. Storm Drainage 17
-
4. Fire Protection 18
-
- 5. Parking Design 18
- 6. Roads 19
B. Quality of Design 20
1. Neighborhood Compatibility 20
2. Site Design 21
3. Trails 22
4. Green Space 23
-
- C. Resource Conservation Techniques 23
1. Energy 24
-
2. Water and Wastewater 24
3. Air 25
D. Proximity to Support Services 25
1. Public Transportation 26
-
2. Community Commercial Facilities 26
-
E. Provision for Affordable Housing 27
-
V. ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 28
-
-
A. Subdivision 28
-
- B. Planned Unit Development 31
- iii
-
-
-
...
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
...
... Section Page
-
- C. GMQS Exemption 35
- Vested Property Rights 36
D.
-
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference
Exhibit 2, Title Commitment
Exhibit 3, Permission to Represent
Exhibit 4, Application Fee Agreement
Exhibit 5, Adjacent Property Owners
.- B. Exhibit 1, Astor Subdivision Final Plat
Exhibit 2, Sparovic/Fothergill Deed
Exhibit 3, Astor Subdivision Agreement
Exhibit 4, Astor Subdivision Declaration
- of Covenants
Exhibit 5, Letter from Schmueser Gordon
- Meyer, Inc.
-
-
-
...
-
...
...
- IV
...
'.,"
-
-
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
-
-
TIUe Page
-
-
Location Map 2
-
- Existing Conditions Map 4
- Site Development Plan 7
-
Slope Reduction Map 33
-
-
-
-
-
-
v
-
-
-
-
-
I. INTRODUCTION
-
-
The following application requests a residential growth management quota
system (GMQS) allocation for one (1) single-family dwelling unit for the Billings
property, which is located at 981, 985 and 995 King Street in the City of Aspen,
Colorado. In addition, th~ application requests subdivision approval to create a new
lot for the single-family unit, planned unit development approval to ~e
underlying zone district's minimum lot area requiremel!.t, and a GMQS exemption
for an on-site affordable housing unit. Vested property rights status is requested for
all approvals granted pursuant to this application (see Pre-Application Conference
Summary, Exhibit I, Appendix A).
-
-
-
-
.-
-
The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 8-106.E., 7-1004, 7-903, 8-
104.C.1.c. and 6-207 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by C. L. Astor and Company,
a Colorado general partnership, the owner of the property (see Title Commitment,
Exhibit 2, Appendix A). Permission for Vann Associates, Planning Consultants, to
represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 3, Appendix A. An executed
application fee agreement, and a list of property owners located within three
hundred (300) feet of the project site, is attached as Exhibits 4 and 5, Appendix A,
respectively.
..~
-
The application is divided into four (4) parts. The first part, or Section II. of
the application, provides a brief description of the project site, while Section III.
describes the Applicant's proposed development. The third part, or Section IV.,
addresses the proposed development's compliance with the growth management
review criteria of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Section V. discusses the additional
approvals which are also required to develop the project. For the reviewer's con-
-
-
-
-
,,-
1
-
.~
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
. l-e
...
j
...
...
-
-
-
-
...
-
'""
...
-
...
-
venience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project are provided in
the various appendices to the application.
While we have attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Regulations,
and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the
application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarifica-
tion. The Applicant would be pleased to provide such additional information as may
be required in the course of the application's review.
...
-
-
-
-
...
-
II. PROJECT SITE
-
The Applicant's property is located on the south side of King Street
approximately one-half (112) block from its intersection with Neal Street, and within
walking distance of the City's downtown commercial area. As the existing conditions
map on the following page illustrates, the property consists of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the
Astor Subdivision. The lots were created in connection with the City Council's
approval of the Astor Subdivision final plat in May of 1980 (see Exhibit I, Appendix
B), and are presently held in single ownership. No merger, however, has occurred,
as the lots were legally created and comply with the dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district. The three (3) lots contain a total of approximately forty-five
thousand two hundred and eighty (45,280) square feet of land area, and are zoned
R-6, Medium-Density Residential.
Man-made improvements to the project site include three (3) duplexes, which
are located on Lots I, 2 and 3, respectively; a barn, which is located on Lot 1; and
a small shed, which is located on Lot 2. Both the duplex on Lot 1 and the shed on
Lot 2 are non-conforming with respect to their side yard setbacks. The lots and their
respective structures otherwise comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
...
...
~
>
.
>
I ~ .
,
"
l' , ~
;;:
III = : >
:: I - W 0
<> ....;; ~ 0 z
i<I':lii :
>
.. I!l Z l: .
. . ~ 0 . ;:
:!l 8: % _1II . , "
;. n' .
. . t ;<
~ "1" 0 .
w .: C I z
f-
0 ~ ~ ~ .
z ~
i h ;. ~ .
.. . ~
0 ~ .
z !E i ~ ~i . ~
w I ~ n !
'" ~ " ~
w i . , . . "
-" . < il z ~ i ~ .
~ ,
. . . ~ ~
;:;: ~ i ~ z
I . 0
i ~ ;; -' u
. . . . ~ +
~ .
.
z
f- 0
:s ~ ~
a... :: ~
If) ~ 6'
z => u
o ~ z
I- ~ ~
- f- f-
a ~_
z < ~
o
u
u
z
-
~
'" i
.. ~
'" . ~
Z N < 0
- u. 0
~ o~
~ >- 0
x :; ~ c5
W -l U U
'"
~e d I
- e ! . :;:
,.. t,) ".,:_
e~!~8~
: >-I.,:~~
:: bJ'; ..: ... .
. >. w.
tt: ;;; ~ 5:
::>
'"
=
z
...
..
'"
""
.
.
N
LL
o
.
.
~~
. .
-~
.
. .
N,
o
>
~3
'.
N
<:1 Z EI
w .
-" N
<t
g ~
f-
W
W
I
if>
,.,
,.,
.' .
'!I6o;.\6
/ (
-- I
DCIJ
0...... ~
~ :lZ ~
l/C1
/
(
"
-----~
,
~-
------
1900
~---
I.i
..-
..
~il~~
~3~:l!;
~~~~~
.~ ~
i~~~~
.
;
.
~
~
~~--
,..
o
-" ~
.
\
III
{,
/ f. ~
I . .
~ ~
~ i
~ "....
(j
.. ~
"' ...';
::4;:""
~
\
,
I 0 .
' , ,., ~ .8.-
f~ t ;, ~
" ~
.- .0'0/
-
. .
~ ~ ~.
-..--- "
........
........
f'
. .
p.
/. . ~
. N
/ N ~ i
(
\
,\
" \
,
\
'"'
- ~
" ::
f- .
o -
-" ~
. \
\
\
\
\
iiJ
(;
""
,,-"
'?
"oS
'tI;
~.
~:t
l
iiJ
(;
""
,,-"
,"o
0"-
,<>0
?'-"
~\.-
"v
?,-"
~\.-
iiJ
(;
""
,,-"
'f:;,-",,,
(j<<-~S
I'"
E ~] ~ .
; : ~ ;
.... < ... 3i
~ ~ ~ ~ ';;
~ i ~ ; Ii
~ ~ ~ ';; s
.. .. s ~ ~
~ i ~ !t' <>
...I 0-- .... 0:
Z Iil.... ~ e ,.
o iH.~;
f- : lL ~ .. 0
< '"~85 .
u .. ~ ! Ii!.:&: . ,..
u.. ~~lb;=!EtJ~
;::: '~""">I
0:: i '~;i~~
w .; ~ ;: '" ... .... ~
u .....12
~8~("1I!!!!i
: * ~ ! * :!l ;;
q.
!, .I
hi!
lill
Illl!
!nl!
~ I ~ - . 3
'lien
" l, I , !
~ Iii:;
. ~ ~ II Ii
. !!on
~ in!!
<<-"
~\)l'
00
'<>
-
.~
...
-
zone district. Lot 3 also contains a small pond which is supplied via the Molly
Gibson ditch, a portion of which traverses Lot 2.
...
-
-
The duplexes on Lots 1 and 2 are accessed directly from King Street, while
the duplex on Lot 3 is accessed via a gravel driveway which traverses Lot 1 and the
adjacent Issac property. A private access easement provides reciprocal access rights
to both Mr. Issac and the Applicant (see Deed from Martin Sparovic to Charles
Fothergill), Exhibit 2, Appendix B). As the existing conditions map illustrates, the
property's topography can be described as generally flat, with the exception of the
steep slopes which are located at the rear of Lot 3, and several smaller embankments
which are located in the vicinity of the property's eastern boundary. Existing
vegetation consists of various deciduous and conifer trees, and miscellaneous native
bushes and ornamental shrubs.
-
-
-
As the attached subdivision agreement indicates (see Exhibit 3, Appendix B),
the Astor Subdivision was exempted from growth management in exchange for the
Applicant's deed restriction of the lower units in each of the three (3) duplexes to
the City's low, moderate and middle income guidelines. This requirement is
memorialized in the declaration of covenants which was subsequently executed by the
Applicant (see Exhibit 4, Appendix B). While no prohibition against further
development was imposed in connection with subdivision approval, the subdivision
agreement specifically notes that any additional development is subject to the receipt
of a GMQS allocation.
-
As discussed in the attached letter from Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser
Gordon Meyer, Inc., Consulting Engineers (see Exhibit 5, Appendix B), the project
site is presently served by all major utilities. A six (6) inch municipal water main,
.-
.~
5
-
-
'.
-
and an eight (8) inch Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) sanitary sewer, ,
is located in the King Street right-of-way, as are the area's electric, telephone and
cable TV service. Fire hydrant #964 is conveniently located at the intersection of
King Street and Neal Street. A second hydrant (#961) is located at the intersection
of King Street and Gibson Avenue.
-
-
-
-
-
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Applicant proposes to resubdivide the project site to create a new lot for
development purposes, and to designate a site specific building envelope thereon.
As the proposed site development plan on the following page illustrates, the new lot
will consist of the portion of Lot 1 which is located west of the existing access
driveway to Lot 3. The remainder of Lot 1, and Lots 2 and 3, will be reconfigured
so as to comply with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district,
and to eliminate the existing structures' nonconforming setbacks. Access to the
proposed building envelope will be provided via the existing driveway which serves
Lot 3.
-
As currently envisioned, the Applicant proposes to sell the new lot (hereinaf-
ter referred to as Lot 1), and to retain ownership of reconfigured Lots 2, 3 and 4,
and the existing duplexes located thereon. The proceeds from the sale of the lot will
be used, in part, to offset the cost of the continued ownership and maintenance of
the remaining lots and structures, which the Applicant intends to convey to her
children. No expansion or redevelopment of the existing structures located on Lots
2, 3 and 4 is proposed at this time.
..
...
.-
..
...
-
-
The purchaser of Lot 1 will extend utilities from the King Street right-of-way
as may be required to serve the lot; and design, construct and landscape the new
-
6
-
AJL~~@(Q)~@J ~~INJDu'U~
'1VI~N3rnSffiI
~~ ~
~ IIi ~Ul
~ l~t ~ "lo.i
! ~~h ! ~ah
~ II>
!: ~
NOI~V;)I'1ddV
S()WD
t ~
" ~
~
I
~
----.....,
/ /" \
\ ,,/ \
'-... ~-_.......... \
,
I I \ I ______ '\ I
! I I I .....-- 5}" \ I
1\ .t.i ~ ,,/', \ \
I ./ / I ....."" ...---J. \ \ \ \ \ \
I /'" I / // ..~"e+1 .// '\ \ , I \ \ \ \
. I / t ' -~ - --, .~,......... :. ,,~ 1.0:,
\ I So I 1,_.............. ..." --i.~~.J...LI-IUII <71 \ '''''~, \ I "'\\ ~
.:w..... I I \ ~ \ I l'"'
,'"\. \----r----.:::-- ~-__ ~ -.. \ I \ \ \
~ .....--. I I',,,,, -- I ~ \ \ \
... \ '- I"" __ I \ ~\ \
':' \. '-',- '.....jJ ,,~t '-'-.......... '~....~'" ,~~-~....\ \ \,
I ~,,- . I ,Y~', < \ \ t---1- \
t I \" '- " I ,......., \ "" '___ ~ \ \ \ \ \
-- -~ ~ ~ " " -., \ ~~-d'_"""".';" ~ I.t I \, \ \ \
""..- --..... h ... f ""........ '1} " I \' \
,,/ ~ " "L "f.. I I\,,. I', '\ 1. <L . I \ \ \
,/ J \ Ii, ~ .( / '-[' " \ ",-" J ~ \ \ "
/ ~ ~ t. / .........-/'1 \ ", \ \ \ \ \ \
/ j. / / "" \ '. \ \ I \
" t-- t \.__//' .....,..... " \ \ '\ \ \ \
I \........ \ \ ~-t \ \
I \ \ .,..-"', ~ I. ' \ I' \ \
I I" 1 \ \ ~ ~ \. \ ' , \ ,
IU -i \ ,,.,, \ \ \ \:' "
~ '-, ' ~ l- ~ \ .. \ \ ~ I
^ '. ... ill \ -- .....--......,...- \ \.. I I
./ l\ ~..... \ l I ,,/ ..;:, \ \ \.' I 1
',\ J ""'_..........1 ',~ t \ \" II
,\. I , \ \, \ t.lll
, ',~/.1 I . ,~ \ 1 ,I I'
\ "I .. ~ \, ;l I
-;: I ~ 0. I ) I J I) it
....." I t. I I 111..1.:
.. I 1." / I ,I I I' "'i
. t I \- '''F- I I J ,II ~
J ~ _..../ ------~ ~ 1 : WI /!/ f
/".,-- t), 2. " ) I 111
/ II \ "F_/ // '!/
--' <b~...., '\~ /','
~----- "', )/1 IIJ"
/ '\ ~/I I
, // I ;
'....._/) /7
' I
1/1
I 1/:
~ ~ ~I
, I .
I ','\
I I ~
~
t
/--
I ---'\
1 ~
, ~
, )
'" /--
~ /
\ I
,j
~ !
~
...l Q~ ~
~i Q
11I::-
i~ ~ ~ @
J 0
", a
Ill,
I I I ~ (Q!
' ,.
, "
, .) ~
<r-i"
"1 Ii
/ " I
0
~
t i ., ~ h ~
i
~
~2 ~ ~ i f ~ ~i ~
!HP tl U 'I <P;: ...... ~I
li fi it
!l - l-b. ~ )t It Ii
... .. ~a} I::: --
~~ ~~ ~ - ~.~...
~ [JBJ[JB~~fl8JglQJ[SJ
"-
, ,.....--'1-.....
i /
. /
! 1-
II~
/ "
h
. "
I-
II)
/.....----/
,
/",' <!,
~L
"~
lb.
1
"-
,
,
"-
~, ,.."'"
-~
..Lv""d...........-"'1!I1~\
...J.M1W~ ~~... :u.Mi'tiJ. ..I....i..'l..."'!:!:.- )
,l9't-.J.1
~
t
~ ,
I
,
I
I
I
"" ,QI I
V~:-rl -------" ~1\ 1\;(
t-- I '\ 0 ~ '\ "- - \
n:t / ~L------->"~'~\ "--1'-- I::'~:'::
I I \, ,--
1/
'r"\ ~;:-~\ I
I " ~
f \
, ~
"'"
,
'1--
,
,
I
,
\
.r--.. _--,
,;>' - -
I
I
-
-
'.
...
residence. The purchaser will also provide an on-site, one (1) bedroom, affordable
housing unit to meet the mitigation requirements of the growth management quota
system. A more detailed discussion of the Applicant's proposed development is
provided below.
.~
""
...
..
-
A.
Water System
..
-
Water service to the new lot, and the residence and affordable housing
unit to be constructed thereon, will be provided via the existing six (6) inch main
located in King Street. The purchaser of Lot 1 will install a new individual service
line and pay the required tap fee. The Aspen Water Department has indicated that
the municipal water system has sufficient capacity to serve the development (see
letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Exhibit 5, Appendix B). No improve-
ments to the existing water main or treatment plant will be required as a result of
the Applicant's proposed development.
-
-
-
-
B. Sewage System
The new lot will be served by the existing eight (8) inch sanitary sewer
which is also located in the King Street right-of-way. According to the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, anticipated flows can be accommodated with no
improvements to existing sewer lines or to the treatment plant (see letter from
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Exhibit 5, Appendix B). Please note that the ACSD
intends to undertake various improvements to a downstream collection line in the
Oklahoma Flats area, and to fund the improvements via tap fee surcharges to be
imposed on new upstream connections. The payment of this surcharge will
contribute to improved sewer service in the immediate site area.
-
-
...
..
-
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
-
".
...
c.
Drainage
~.
.-
Existing drainage patterns in the immediate site area will be unaffected
by the proposed development, and no adverse impact is anticipated with respect to
the City's existing drainage facilities (see letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.,
Exhibit 5, Appendix B). Historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoffwill
be maintained. In the event required, on.site drywells will be used to retain and
dispose of additional surface runoff. A detailed drainage plan for Lot 1 will be
submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the new residence.
..
-
-
-
..
...
-
.....
....."
..
D.
Fire Protection
-
-
Fire protection for the new residence and the on.site affordable
housing unit will be provided by the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department. The project
site is located less than one. half (1/2) mile from the fire station, resulting in a
response time of approximately three (3) to five (5) minutes (see letter from
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Exhibit 5, Appendix B). As discussed previously,
fire hydrants are conveniently located at both ends of King Street.
ow
-
-
-
.-
E. Development Data
-
-
The proposed subdivision, and the building envelope on Lot I, has
been designed in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone
district, and the subdivision design standards of Section 7-1004.C.4. of the
Regulations. As Table 1 below indicates, the reconfigured lots meet or exceed the
R-6 zone district's minimum lot size and lot width requirements. In addition, the
proposed building envelope complies with all applicable setback requirements.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
-
- 1. Existing Zoning R-6, Medium-Density Residential
- 2. Existing Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 45,280
",.
Lot 1 14,935
- Lot 2 15,126
- Lot 3 15,219
- 3. Minimum Required Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)
-
4. Minimum Required Lot Area/Dwelling
- Unit (Sq. Ft.)
-
..... Single-Family 6,000
Duplexl 4,500
-
5. Proposed Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)2 45,280
Loti 9,130
Lot 2 9,030
Lot 3 9,220
- Lot 4 17,900
,-
6. Minimum Required Lot Width (Feet) 60
.-
- 7. Proposed Lot Width (Feet)
Lot 1 91
Lot 2 84
- Lot 3 80
Lot 4 164
- 8. Minimum Required Setbacks (Feet)
Front Yard3 10
- Rear Yard3 10
Side Yards4 10
-
- 9. Proposed Setbacks/Lot 1 (Feet)
- Front Yard 20
-
- 10
-
-
-
.
- Rear Yard 10
East Side Yard 20
West Side Yard 11
-
10. Maximum Allowed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)'
-
- LotI 4,090
Lot 2 4,080
.. Lot 3 4,090
- Lot 4 4,580
11. Minimum Required Open Space (Sq. Ft.) None
-
12. Proposed Site CoveragelLot 1 (Sq. Ft.)
-
- Building Envelope 4,180
Access Easement 1,840
Undeveloped 3,110
-
1
Two (2) detached residential units are also permitted on a lot of nine
thousand (9,000) square feet or greater in the R-6 zone district.
All lot areas have been rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet.
-
2
3
For principal buildings, the front and rear yards must total no less than thirty
(30) feet, and each yard must be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
-
4
For a lot containing nine thousand one hundred and thirty (9,130) square
feet, the sum of both side yards must total no less than thirty-one (31) feet.
-
,
Garages and carports are excluded from allowable floor area up to a maxi-
mum of five hundred (500) square feet.
..
"~
-
It should be noted that the proposed development will require planned
unit development (PUO) approval to vary the minimum lot area requirement with
respect to Lot 1. As Table 1 indicates, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for
duplexes in the R-6 zone district is forty-five hundred (4,500) square feet. While Lot
1 will contain approximately nine thousand one hundred and thirty (9,130) square
.-
-
-
..
...
-
-
11
-
...
-
-
..
"
feet, approximately eighteen hundred and forty (1,840) square feet is encumbered
by the existing access easement which serves reconfigured Lot 4 and the Issac
residence. Pursuant to the definition of lot area, which is contained in Section 3-101
of the Regulations, this easement must be subtracted for density purposes. As a
result, the new lot contains insufficient land area to accommodate both the proposed
residence and its on-site affordable housing unit. A detailed discussion of the
requested variance is provided in Section V.B. of this application.
-
-
-
..
...
....
-
..
F. Traffic and Parking
...
..
The proposed development should have no adverse impact upon the
surrounding street system. Assuming a trip generation factor of four (4) vehicles per
day, the new residence and the on-site affordable housing unit will theoretically
generate approximately eight (8) additional vehicles per day. As discussed in the
attached letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (see Exhibit 5, Appendix B),
these additional vehicles represent a negligible increase in the existing traffic volume
on King Street, which is currently functioning below allowable capacity.
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
The project site is conveniently located with respect to the Roaring
Fork Transit Agency's (RFT A) existing transit routes. The Hunter Creek bus route
passes through the Park Avenue and Park Circle intersection, which is located
approximately two (2) blocks east of the Applicant's property. Similarly, the
Mountain Valley, Snowbunny and Highlands bus routes all pass through the
intersection of Main Street and Spring Street, which is located approximately three
and one-half (3-1/2) blocks southwest of the property. All of these routes link the
project site to RFTA's Rubey Park transit center, which is the hub of the communi-
ty's public transportation system.
-
-
-
-
..
...
...
-
-
-
12
...
...
-
..
...
With respect to parking, the current requirement for free market
residential uses in the R-6 zone district is one (1) space per bedroom. The off-street
parking requirement for affordable housing units, however, is established by Special
Review pursuant to Section 5-301.B. of the Regulations. This requirement notwith-
standing, the proposed development's subdivision/PUD agreement will require the
provision of one (1) parking space per bedroom for both the new residence and the
on-site affordable housing unit.
-
-
-
...
-
-
G. Affordable Housing
-
The Applicant proposes to satisfy the affordable housing requirements
of Section 8-106.E.5. of the Regulations via the provision of a one (1) bedroom, low
i~~e,affordable housin~ unit within the designated buildinl! envelope on Lot 1.
The unit will be located within or attached to the free market residence, or detached
as provided for in Section 5-201.B. of the Regulations. The proposed development's
subdivision/PUD agreement will require the purchaser of Lot 1 to execute an
appropriate deed restriction with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA) prior to the issuance of a building permit for the free market residence.
The unit will meet or exceed APCHA's minimum, net livable area requirement for
a one bedroom, low income unit, and will be deed restricted to the Category #2
guidelines in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,.,-,"
-
The Applicant's affordable housing commitment is based upon the
resident generation figures contained in Section 8-106.E.5.b. of the Regulations. The
proposed one (1) bedroom, on-site affordable housing unit will house one and three-
fourths (1-3/4) employees, or approximately thirty-seven (37) percent of the total
number of persons to be housed by the proposed development. This percentage is
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
13
-
..
-
"--
..
calculated by dividing the number of employees to be housed by the total number
of persons to be housed by the proposed development (i.e., employees plus free
market residents). The calculation is as follows.
% Employees Housed = 1.75 Employees + 3 Free Market Residents + 1.75 Employees
% Employees Housed = 1.75 + 4.75
% Employees Housed = 0.37
Pursuant to Section 8-109.J. of the Regulations, the City Council must
approve the method by which the Applicant proposes to satisfy the proposed
development's affordable housing requirement. In the event the Applicant is eligible
for a growth management allocation, and the proposed one (1) bedroom, on-site
affordable housing unit is determined to be unacceptable, the Applicant will provide
affordable housing in an amount consistent with the representations of this applica-
tion via an alternative method acceptable to the City Council.
-
..
...
..
...
..
..
,.
-
-
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
H. Stoves and Fireplaces
The proposed development will comply with the applicable fire-
place/wood-burning device regulations of the Environmental Health Department in
effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. These regulations presently allow
two (2) certified devices, which may consist of a gas log fireplace and an approved
wood stove, or two (2) approved gas fireplaces. The regulations, however, could
obviously change prior to the issuance of a building permit for the residence.
-
-
-
,...
-
-
-
I.
Location
~>--
The project site is located within convenient walking distance of the
northeastern edge of the City's downtown commercial area. Garrish Park abuts the
-
-
-,
14
-
-
-
'.
-
property's eastern boundary. Herron Park is located approximately one (I) block
south of the property, while the Rio Grande recreation area is located approximately
four (4) blocks to the west, Rubey Park, the hub of the community's mass transpor-
tation system, is located approximately eight (8) blocks southwest of the property.
Main Street and Highway 82 provide convenient access to the community's schools,
Aspen Valley Hospital, and the Pitkin County Airport, Given the limited nature of
the Applicant's request, no significant impact upon the above facilities is anticipated
as a result of the proposed development.
..
-
-
-
.....
-
.-
.-
J.
Impact on Adjacent Uses
-
As noted previously, the project site is zoned R-6, Medium-Density
Residential. The areas located immediately north, south and west of the property
are zoned R-15, Moderate-Density Residential. Garrish Park, which abuts the
property's eastern boundary, is zoned P, Public. Existing land uses in the immediate
site area consist primarily of single-family, duplex and multi-family residential units.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the R-6,
Medium-Density Residential, zone district and is compatible with surrounding land
uses. As a result, the functional character of this area of the City will be unaffected
by the Applicant's proposed development.
....
.~
-
-
-
.-
-
""
K.
Construction Schedule
-
""
The new residence will be constructed within three (3) years of the
commencement of the project's vested rights period, unless an exemption from, or
extension of, the GMQS allocation expiration deadline is obtained as provided for
in Section 8-108.A.1. of the Regulations.
-
-
-
..
..
-
15
..
-
IV, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
-
-
The following section addresses the proposed development's compliance with
the City's residential GMQS evaluation criteria. We believe that the proposed
development meets or exceeds the minimum applicable standard in each review
category. Based on our understanding of the various criteria, and the project's
compliance therewith, we have requested what we believe to be an appropriate score
in each review category. Please reference as necessary the appropriate headings in
Section III. of this application for detailed information supporting the Applicant's
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
representations and commitments.
A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services
-
-
"Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with
respect to Its Impact upon public facilities and services, by the assigning of
points according to the following standards and considerations.
-
o - Proposed development requires the provision of new public
facilities and services at Increased public expense.
1 -
Proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities
and services, or any public facility service improvements made by
the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the
area in general.
-'
-
-
...
2-
Proposed development Improves the availability of public facilities
and services in the area.
..
-
The following public facilities and services shall be rated accordingly,"
-
1, Water
-
-
"Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the
proposed development as well as the applicant's commitment to Install any
potable water facility extensions or treatment plant, or other facility upgrading
required to serve the proposed development"
-
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
-
-
.*
-
-
The proposed development may be handled by the existing level of
service in the area. As discussed in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's letter (see Exhibit
5, Appendix B), the Aspen Water Department has indicated that the existing six (6)
inch main located in King Street is adequate to serve the new lot, and that system
upgrades will not be required.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Requested Score:
1 Point
-
2.
Sanitary Sewer
-
-
"Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development as well as the applicanfs commitment to install any
sanitary system extensions or treatment plant, or other facility upgrading
required to serve the development."
-
-
-
-
The proposed development will improve the level of service in the
immediate site area. As discussed in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's letter (see Exhibit
5, Appendix B), the ACSD has indicated that the existing eight (8) sewer line located
in King Street is adequate to serve the new lot, and that system upgrades will not be
required. The Applicant's payment of a tap fee surcharge, which is intended to
offset the cost of downstream system repairs, will contribute to the improvement of
sanitary sewer service in the immediate site area.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Requested Score:
2 Points
-
-
3.
Storm Drainage
-
A
"Considering the degree to which the applicant proposed to
maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed
development requires use of the City's drainage system, consideration of the
commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities
and to maintain the system over the long-term shall be made."
-
-
-
17
-
-
-
,-
'.
-
The proposed development may be handled by the existing level of
service in the area. The project site's historic flow rates with respect to surface water
runoff will be maintained, thereby complying with the stormwater management
requirements of the subdivision regulations and the City's Engineering Department.
As discussed in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's letter (see Exhibit 5, Appendix B), no
improvements to the City's stormwater drainage system will be required to
accommodate the proposed development.
...
...
-
...
-
-
-
Requested Score:
1 Point
-
4. Fire Protection
,-
"Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protec-
tion according to Its established response standards without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and
capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant
to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the
project."
-
-
-
.-
-
The proposed development may be handled by the existing level of
service in the area. As discussed in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's letter (see Exhibit
5, Appendix B), the existing fire hydrants which are located at opposite ends of King
Street are adequate to serve the new lot. Fire Department access to the property
is also well within established response times.
-
-
-
-
...'
Requested Score:
1 Point
-
s.
Parking Design
-
-
"Considering the provision of adequate off-street parking spaces
to meet the needs of the proposed development, pursuant to the requirements
of Art. 5, Dlv. 2, and considering their visual impact, the amount of paved
surface, and the convenience and safety of the spaces provided."
-
-
-
-
18
-
-
-
-
-
The proposed development may be handled by the existing level of
service in the area. As discussed in Section III.F. of this application, the project's
subdivision/PUD agreement will require the provision of one (1) off-street parking
space per bedroom for both the new single-family residence and the proposed one
(1) bedroom affordable housing unit. The new residence to be constructed on Lot
1 will be accessed from the existing driveway which serves Lot 4, thereby eliminating rf~ ';;'
the need for an additional curb cut on King Street. As the proposed parking exceeds 'if utI l~f
rfY
the minimum requirement, and enhances safety, a maximum score is warranted. \ '>( ~I"'.J'
\:/
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Requested Score:
2 Points
6. Roads
-
-
"Considering the capacity of major roads to serve the proposed
development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating
safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system
or causing a need to extend the existing road network, Considering the
appllcanfs commitment to Install the necessary road system Improvements to
serve the Increased usage attributable to the development"
-
-
-
-
-
The proposed development may be handled by the existing level of
service in the area. As discussed in the Schmueser Gordon Meyer's letter (see
Exhibit 5, Appendix B), the project should have no adverse impact upon King Street,
which is presently functioning below allowable capacity levels. Although vehicle
ingress and egress to the property will obviously increase as a result of development,
potential circulation conflicts will be minimized, as the new lot will be accessed via
the existing driveway which serves Lot 4. No additional curb cuts on King Street will
be required, thereby eliminating a potential hazard to both pedestrians and vehicular
traffic.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Requested Score:
1 Point
-
19
-
-
-
.,.
B.
Quality of Design
,,-
..
"Each Development Application shall be rated based upon Its site
dulgn and amenities by the assigning of points for neighborhood compatibility,
site dulgn, trails, and green space, according to following standards and
considerations.
-
-
0-
A totally deficient design
.-
1 - A major design flaw
2 . An acceptable (but standard) design
-
3 - An excellent design"
1. Neighborhood Compatibility
-
"Considering the compatibility of the proposed development
(Including Its scale, siting, massing, height and building materials) with the land
usu In the surrounding neighborhood."
-
-
-
As the new residence and its affordable housing unit will be designed
by the purchaser of Lot I, it is impossible to evaluate its scale, massing, height and
building materials in relationship to surrounding development at this time. The
proposed subdivision, however, has been designed to ensure compatibility with the
neighborhood. As the site development plan illustrates, Lots I, 2 and 3 (i.e., the
three lots which abut King Street) are roughly equal in size, resulting in individual
floor areas which are significantly less than presently allowed. As discussed
previously, the immediate site area is zoned R-15, Moderate-Density Residential,
which permits comparable floor areas on similarly sized lots, and significantly larger
floor areas on conforming lots. We believe that the proposed development 7
represents an excellent design which is compatible with the surrounding area.
-
-
.-
-
-
Requested Score:
3 Points
-
20
-
"".
2. Site Design
.~
0_'
.~
"Considering the quality and character of the following components
of the proposed development: landscaping and open space areas; the amount
of site coverage by buildings; the extent to which clustering of development Is
used to preserve key features of the site; the amenities provided for residents
such as bike racks, recreation facilities, bus shelters and similar improvements;
the extent of underground utilities; and the arrangement of improvements for
efficient circulation, Including access for service, Increased safety and privacy,
and provision of snow storage areas."
-
-
-
-
,-
The design of the proposed subdivision has been dictated by the
existing structures which are located on the Applicant's property, and the dimension-
al requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. The principal objectives with
respect to site design were to create three (3) similarly sized lots adjacent to King
fuet, to reconfigure Lot 4 so as to provide the existing structure located thereon
with a suitable front yard, and to eliminate the existing non-conformities with respect
to the structures located on Lots 2 and 3. As the site development plan illustrates,
these objectives are met by the proposed development.
-
-
-
-
As discussed previously, the new lot will be accessed from the existing
driveway which serves Lot 4, thereby eliminating the need for a curb cut on King
Street. One (1) off-street parking space per bedroom will be provided for the new
residence and the on-site affordable housing unit. The residence will be landscaped
by the lot purchaser and all utility extensions will be located underground. Although
no open space is required within the R-6 zone district, a minimum of three thousand
one hundred and ten (3,110) square feet, or approximately thirty-four (34) percent,
of Lot 1 (excluding the building envelope and access easement) will remain
undeveloped. In reality, however, the amount of open space will be significantly
greater, as the building envelope has been generously sized to provide design
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
21
-
-
flexibility, and presently exceeds the maximum site coverage requirement of the R-6
zone district. To ensure the provision of adequate landscaping, the subdivisionlPUD
agreement will require that the purchaser submit a landscaping plan to the Planning
Office for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new
-
residence.
?
-
,
-
Requested Score:
3 Points
-
3.
Trails
-
"Considering the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provision of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible."
.-
-
The Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan element of the
recently adopted Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP) depicts King Street as a
"Primary" pedestrian route. In general, such routes are expected to be heavily used
by pedestrian commuters who will utilize either sidewalks or off-road trails for
circulation purposes. Neither sidewalks nor an off-road trail, however, are presently
located within the King Street corridor. In addition, neither curb and gutter nor
street lights have been installed by the City. To facilitate the installation of these
improvements, the Applicant will agree to join an improvement district in the event
one is formed, and will execute a so-called sidewalk, curb and gutter agreement with
the City in the event required. We believe that the partial installation of sidewalk,
curb and gutter along the Applicant's property is premature at this time, as no
overall plan for the improvement of the King Street right-of-way has been prepared
by the City's Engineering Department or approved by the City Council.
-
.-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
The Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan element also
depicts a proposed "off-road" bicycle trail within the King Street corridor. While the
-
-
22
-
-
-
AACP does not elaborate regarding the proposed alignment of this trail, such trails
are proposed to be separate from the street system. As a result, the logical location
for the proposed trail would be Garrish Park, which is located adjacent to the
Applicant's property. As the existing conditions map illustrates, no reasonable
alignment exists for a bicycle across the Applicant's property.
-
-
-
-
-
Requested Score:
2 Points
-
4.
Green Space
"Considering the amount of vegetated open space in the proposed
development which is usable by the residents of the proposed development, and
offers relief from the densities of surrounding development"
-
...
As discussed previously, a substantial portion of Lot 1 will be preserved
as landscaped open space. As there are no immediate plans for the remainder of the
property, Lots 2, 3 and 4 will remain unchanged as a result of the proposed
development. The existing undeveloped portions of the property provide ample open
space which is usable by the property's residents, and which provides visual relief
from the density of surrounding development. Garrish Park, which is located
immediately adjacent to the property, also significantly contributes to the availability
of open space in the immediate site area.
--
-
-
-
-
Requested Score:
2 Points
-
C. Resource Conservation Techniques
-
-
"Each Development Application shall be rated based on the conser-
vation techniques for energy, water and wastewater, and air, by the assigning of
points according to the following standards and considerations.
-
-
-
0-
Proposed developmentfails to meet the standards of the Municipal
Code or does not result In a net conservation of resources.
-
23
-
-
-
"~
1 -
Proposed development meets the standards of the Municipal Code
or results In a standard level of resource conservation.
-
-
2-
Proposed development exceeds the standards of the Municipal
Code or results In an exceptional level of resource conservation."
-
-
-
1.
Energy
-
-
.Consldering the extent to which the proposed development will use
paulve and/or active energy conservation techniques In Its construction,
Including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient
heating and cooling system and solar energy devices; the extent to which the
proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting
and Inefficient woodburnlng devices; and the location of the proposed
development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result
In energy conservation..
-
-
,-
The proposed development's subdivisionlPUD agreement will require
that the new residence and on-site affordable housing unit comply with the minimum
requirements of the Model Energy Code in effect at the time of the issuance of a
building permit. As such compliance cannot be determined until detailed design of
the residence is undertaken, an energy analysis demonstrating compliance with
applicable Code requirements will be prepared and submitted in connection with the
project's building permit application. As the Applicant's energy commitment is
acceptable and meets the requirements of the Regulations, a standard score in this
-
category is warranted.
-
Requested Score:
1 Point
.-
2.
Water and Wastewater
-
.-
.Conslderlng the extent to which the proposed development will use
water conservation techniques such as water conserving plumbing fixtures or
wastewater reuse systems or will conserve surface water resources through
Irrigation, sprinkling, pondlng and similar site enhancements, and considering
whether the applicant dedicates water rights to the City of Aspen..
-
-
24
-
-
-
.-
The proposed development's subdivisionlPUD agreement will require . J 4 (j(>.Py
the inclusion of low flow, water conselVation devices in the construction of the new AO(., 0
residence and on-site affordable housing unit. The existing ~~~d located on Lot 4 - +" ~f\
also contributes to the conse~ation of su~ace water resources. As the Applicant's. -hw(;~ .
t) J/'/.vrv.rJ.
commitment exceeds the City's minimum standards, the proposed development is
entitled to the maximum available score in this category.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Requested Score:
2 Points
-
.-
3.
Air
-
"Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's
air quality, Including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning
devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning
devices will be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust
prevention measures are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any
special emission control devices are used."
-
As discussed in Section III.H. of this application, the new residence
and on-site affordable housing unit will comply with the Environmental Health
Department's fireplace/wood-burning device regulations in effect at the time of
issuance of a building permit. As the Applicant's commitment with respect to
fireplaces and wood-burning devices is acceptable and meets the requirements of the
Regulations, a standard score in this category is warranted.
Requested Score:
1 Point
O. Proximity to Support Services
-
-
"Each OevelopmentApplication shall be rated based on its proximi-
ty to public transportation and community commercial facilities by the assigning
of points according to the following standards and considerations.
.-
.-
25
-
-
<,
1. Public Transportation
-
-
1 -
-
-
2-
-
.-
3-
-
Proposed development Is located further than six (6)
blocks walking distance from an existing bus route.
Proposed development Is located within six (6) blocks
walking distance of an existing bus route.
Proposed development is located within two (2) City
blocks walking distance of an existing bus route."
As discussed in Section III.F. of this application, the project site is
located within two (2) City blocks walking distance of the Hunter Creek bus route.
As a result, the proposed development is entitled to the maximum available score
in this category.
-
Requested Score:
3 Points
2. Community Commercial Facilities
1 -
.-
2-
-
-
3-
.-
Proposed deveiopment Is located further than six (6)
blocks walking distance from the commercialfacilltles
int eh City.
Proposed development is located within six (6) blocks
walking distance of the commercial facilities in the
City.
Proposed development is located within two (2)
blocks walking distance of commercial facilities In the
City.
The proposed development is located within six (6) blocks walking
distance of the City's downtown commercial area. As a result, the proposed
development is entitled to a score of two (2) points in this category.
.:-
-
-
-
-
..
-
Requested Score:
2 Points
26
, j".~
D.
Provision for Affordable Housing
"-
"Each Development Application shall be assigned points for the
provision of affordable housing which complies with the housing size, type,
Income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with the provisions of Sec. 8-
109.
-
-
-
Points shall be assigned as follows:
-
I)
One (1) point shall be assigned for every five (5%) percent of the
proposed development that Is restricted to use by occupants
meeting the low income price guidelines and low Income occupan-
cy limitations;
"-
-
Ii) One (1) point shall be assigned for every ten (10%) percent of the
proposed development that Is restricted to use by occupants
meeting the moderate income price guidelines, and moderate
Income occupancy limitations;
III) One (1) point shall be assigned for every twenty (20%) percent of
the proposed development that Is restricted to use by occupants
meeting the middle income price guidelines and middle income
occupancy limitations."
-
As discussed in Section III.G. of this application, the proposed
development's subdivision/PUD agreement will require the purchaser of Lot 1 to
provide an on-site, one (1) bedroom, affordable housing unit, and to deed restrict the
unit to APCHA's Category 2, low income guidelines, as provided for in Section 8-
109.1.1. of the Regulations. The unit will house one and three-quarters (1-3/4)
employees, or approximately thirty-seven (37) percent of the total number of persons
to be housed by the proposed development. Based on the Applicant's commitment,
and the provisions of Section 8-106.E.(5)(b) of the Regulations, the proposed
development is entitled to seven (7) points, calculated as follows.
-
37 Percent Employees Housed + 5 Percent = 7.4
.-
Requested Score:
7 Points
27
-
~
-
Hjto
,...
v.
ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
....
In addition to a commercial growth management quota system allocation, the
proposed development requires subdivision approval to create a lot for the new resi-
dence, planned unit development approval to vary the underlying zone district's
minimum lot area requirement, and a GMQS exemption for the project's proposed
on-site affordable housing unit. Vested property rights status is requested for all
approvals which may be granted pursuant to this application.
-
-
.-
-
/ A.
Subdivision
. ,''-.../
(
\..
,
-
...... . Pursuant triSection 3-101 of the Regulations, the division of land into
two (2) or more lots for the purpose of transfer of ownership is by definition a
-
subdivision. Consequently, the Applicant's proposed creation of a new lot for sale
and development purposes is subject to the City's review and approval pursuant to
'---" ,
F~~~n 7-1004.C, of the Regulations. The various subdivision review criteria, and
the prC)p.osed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below.
-
1. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan."
-
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan indicates that the project site is located
within the "Single-Family" land use category. As noted previously, the site is zoned
R-6, Medium Density Residential. The proposed single-family lot is a permitted use
-
in this zone district, and the residence to be constructed thereon is consistent with
"-
the property's single-family residential designation. The proposed development is
also consistent with the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan in that the new
lot will contain an on-site affordable housing unit. The provision of such units is
consistent with the recommendations of the Housing Action Plan element of the new
-
28
-
AACP. The proposed subdivision is also consistent with the AACP's so-called "infill"
development recommendation.
,~
It should be noted that the Housing Action Pllln element of the AACP
identifi~s Lot 1 as a potential affordable housing purposes. According to the
Pla.nning Office, the site was identified at the request of the Applicant, and has since
been eliminated as being inappropriate for the level of density that would be
required to accommodate the property's appraised value. As the new residence will
include an on-site affordable housing unit, the proposed development is believed to
be consistent with the Plan's recommendation.
.-
-
As discussed previously, the Open Space/Recreation and Environnumt
Action Pllln element of the AACP identifies King Street as a primary pedestrian
commuter route. To facilitate the instaiiation of pedestrian improvements in the
area, the Applicant will agree to join an improvement district in the event one is
formed. To the best of our knowledge, no other element of the Aspen Area
Community Pllln contains recommendations which preclude, or otherwise pertain to,
the proposed development.
2. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses In the area. The proposed subdivision shall not
adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas,"
The proposed development is consistent with the character of existing
-
land uses in the surrounding area, and will have no adverse effect on the area's
future development. The immediate site area consists of mixed residential develop-
ment, including both old and new single-family, duplex and multi-family structures.
As the area is essentially fully developed, the proposed project should have little if
any effect on the development potential of neighboring properties.
-
-
..
-
29
-
-
-
~
-
3, "The proposed subdivision shall be In compliance with all
applicable requirements of the Land Use Regulations."
.~
.-
The proposed development has been designed to comply with the
applicable requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district and all relevant provi-
sions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
-
-
-
-
4. "The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
muclflow, rocksllde, avalanche or snowsllde, steep topography or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents In the proposed subdivision."
No natural hazards adversely affect the development of the property.
Consequently, no adverse affect upon the health, safety or welfare of the project's
residents is anticipated.
5. "The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause Inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs,"
No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary
public costs will occur as a result of the provision of public services to the proposed
development. All required utilities are currently available in the King Street right-of-
way, and all utility extension costs will be borne by the purchaser of Lot 1.
In addition to compliance with the preceding review criteria, the
-
Regulations also require that various improvements be provided in connection with
the proposed subdivision, and that specific standards be adhered to in the
subdivision's design. At the Applicant's request, Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser
Gordon Meyer, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has reviewed the applicable requirements
of the Regulations and discussed the project with the City's referral agencies (see
-
..
-
-
30
-
-
...
-
Exhibit 5, Appendix B). The improvements and design standards which pertain to
the Applicant's proposed development, and the project's compliance with Schmueser
Gordon Meyer's recommendations, have been discussed in detail in Section III. of
this application.
-
-
-
-
-
Section 7-1004.D.2.a.(I) of the Regulations requires the preparation
of a final plat prior to City Council review of a subdivision application. As the
proposed subdivision involves the creation of only one (1) new lot, and subdivision
review will occur concurrently with the City Council's award of a GMQS develop-
ment allocation, it would appear appropriate to delay the preparation of the final
plat until after Council review. The submission of a recordable final plat and
subdivision/PUD agreement for staff review and the Mayor's signature, however, is
an acceptable condition of subdivision approval.
~ Plann~_~_~i~_~.V.IO~~t)..
--
-
-
-
As noted previously, the proposed development will require planned
unit development approval to vary the R-6 zone district's minimum lot area require-
ment with respect to Lot 1. Pursuant to'tect~~~u"j.:.:9021of the Regulations, the
proposed development may be approved as a planned unit development, subject to
compliance with the City's PUD regulations. An amendment of the official zone
district map, however, is not required, as the property's underlying zoning will remain
unchanged. The Applicant need only receive conceptual and final PUD development
J---- :-'I
plan approval, as provided for in~~~.7_~_903 Jof the Regulations.
-
-
.
Please note that Section 7-903.C.3. of the Regulations permits the
consolidation of the conceptual and final PUD development plan review process if
the Planning Director determines that the issues involved in the proposed PUD are
-
-
'-'"
31
-
-
-
-
limited in relation to the PUD review procedures and standards. As the sole
purpose of approving the proposed development as a PUD is to permit a minor
variation in the underlying zone district's minimum lot area requirement, a
consolidated review process would appear to be appropriate in this case. The basic
PUD review criteria are identical to those of the subdivision regulations, and have
been addressed in Section V.B. of this application. Similarly, the submission
requirements for a final PUD development plan are essentially the same as for a
residential GMQS application, which are addressed in Section III. of this application.
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
The project site is suitable for development and sufficient land area is
available to accommodate the proposed density. Existing roads and utilities are
adequate to serve the project, and no adverse impacts upon the area's air or water
quality is anticipated. The proposed site development plan is compatible with the
site's existing topography and minimal regrading will be required. The majority of
the site's existing mature vegetation will be retained and additional landscaping will
be provided to enhance privacy and reduce visual impacts.
-
An application for planned unit development approval must also
demonstrate compliance with the so-called slope density reduction requirements of
the PUD regulations. As the slope reduction map on the following page illustrates,
portions of the project site contain slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent. These
areas, however, are limited primarily to the embankment which is located at the rear
of Lot 4. Additional smaller areas of steep slopes are located along the eastern edge
of Lot 3 and at the northwest corner of Lot 1. While the application of the slope
density reduction regulations to such areas is arguably outside the intent of the PUD
regulations, the land area of the project site has been reduced for density calculation
-
-
..
'-
..
..
..
-
32
..
-
-
!
"I :
. .
:il : ~ ~
. < ~ \!;fi
. ..~ . >-
.
. ~ ~. . >-
.
< -. "
, . t. . -
~ . O.
1 . w. i .
w ~
>- ! ~-I 0 1
0 I .
Z . . ~ I
.
"" ~ ~ ~
0 . ; ~~ . il
z ,
w i .
'" if .
w ; ~ 0 ~t
~ . . [ ~
. , . ~ ~ } ~ ~ij~
, . ~ ~ . .
~ ~ . ,
~ 22~ 2~1
. ~ ~ ~ . . Q
~ 0 f
~ . . . u
~ ~ . + I&)t\- i:h
-: -=
. +-
~
t- o
~ "'- t "'-
. a .,
I ~
-.. ~ ..... " I!l .. . f
e
~ t i ~ ~ ~ } ~
!
I I " <:. ! !! * i
:
q) ~ ". fH
Itdd ~ -- - - -- ~
>:-
~i fUU .~
le.~~~.. .}
~ . a.:.~ ~~
~ ,,- ~o ~ ~ a ~~ :1
l~ ,I;. ,t c.""- ~ ' , '~
. tt .... "+-...... "~Oi\
a-........ '- ~'-
,
D~~f] ~, n
......... ~ 3 \ ~!
~ ......... 1
.........
'......... ~.:..:.:. f'--. -
, - \
\
u
z Z ~
>- -
-<: '"
--' ~ ~
"- ; ,.. VI
>- '"
c; z '" lI\
if> :> '"
Z m 0 i
:> u z;;;
0 ~ -. .
z '" . .
>- ~ - Z J : '"
0 ~
>- >- '" . . ~
'" ~ - >- ' 0
z < ~
0 ~ ~..; ..
u >.
z "'~
.. w
'" ~ '"
z ~ VI
N <
0 Z
>- <L 0 '"
if> - 0 < "-
~
- ~ ,.. 0 VI
X >- >- ~ "'"
w 0 - 0
~ u u
-::
f- -
0
~ .
.
a
.
I 'I
,I
/Id
I a ;
q
i
z
~
~
i
~
~
Q
lltn
/
U)
/
(
\
\\
\
\
\
(jj
u
'"
."
"-
;;
^o
oS
(jj
u
'"
,,-"
~t-0S
\0
00"1-
"' '0
~"t-
'V
"'
~"t-
(jj
u
'"
"
"-
",,,,,",
ss'<'
t-0"
j ;
! ~
~ ~
~ !
?
~ I R
lEd
11 ~ ;: ~
Ii; I
iPll
!!! i!
~ ~ t ~ g
~ ; i ; e
Ii" !
Iii!
~ I"'
~ i i ~
!!. !!
~m!!
-\
Dt-"
0'0'"
'0
z
o
>-
<
U
<L
. .
! ~
. 0
R !
~~~. ~JJ~
::'lJl
~ ~ ~ ~
: ~ -' ..
... u. ~ 0
:1 $ ~ ~
-
>-
~
w
u
~
-
purposes, as provided for in Section 7-903.B.2.b. Tbe required calculations are
summarized in Table 2, below.
-
-
.
Table 2
DENSITY REDUCTION CALCULATIONS
..
,~
Slope
Site Areal
% Reduction
Available Area
-
50%
41,580
1,280
140
21% to 30%
41,580
2,560
540
None
20% or Less
31% to 40%
75%
41% and Over
600
100%
None
Totals
45,280
43,000
I
All areas have been rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet.
-
As Table 2 indicates, approximately two thousand two hundred and
eighty (2,280) square feet of the Applicant's property must be excluded from the
calculation of allowable density. As discussed in Section III.E. of this application,
the existing access easement which selVes Lot 4 must also be subtracted from the
property's land area for density calculation purposes. Approximately forty-one
thousand one hundred and sixty (41,160) square feet, therefore, remains after
reduction for steep slopes and subtraction of the access easement. As the project's
minimum required lot area totals thirty-six thousand (36.000) square feet (i.en 8
duplex units @ 4,500 square feet each). sufficient land area is available to
accommodate the proposed development.
34
-
-
The proposed development complies with all of the dimensional
requirements of the R-6 zone district except the district's minimum lot area criteria.
As discussed previously, Lot 1 contains approximately nine thousand one hundred
and thirty (9,130) square feet, of which approximately eighteen hundred and forty
(1,840) square feet is encumbered by an access easement. As this easement must be
subtracted from lot area for density purposes, insufficient land area remains to
accommodate the proposed new residence and its on-site affordable housing unit.
More specifically, Lot 1 contains approximately one thousand seven hundred and ten
t
(1,710) square feet less than the nine thousand (9,000) square feet of land area wh~ 1J,O,,O
is required for a duplex in the R-6 zone district.
Pursuant to Section 7-903.B.4. of the Regulations, a variation in
minimum lot area is permitted, provided that "tM total area of aU lots, when averaged,
at least equals tM permitted minimum for the zone district." Assuming that Lot 1
contains approximately seven thousand two hundred and ninety (7,290) square feet
after subtracting the existing access easement, and that approximately two thousand
two hundred and eighty (2,280) square feet of land area must be subtracted from the
property's land area for slope density reduction, approximately forty-one thousand
one hundred and sixty (41,160) square feet of land area remains for density purposes.
-
'"
The proposed development's average lot area, therefore, is ten thousand two
~
hundred and ninety (10,290) square feet per lot, which substantially exceeds the
minimum nine thousand (9,000) square foot requirement of the R-6 zone district.
-
,
'"
( c.
GMQS Exemption
((. -
.~
An exemption from the City's GMQS regulations is required for the
project's proposed on-site affordable housing unit. Pursuant to Section 8-104.C.1.c.
-
.~
'"
35
-
~
~
of the Regulations, the City Council may exempt dwelling units which are deed
restricted in compliance with the APCHA's affordable housing guidelines from the
growth management quota system. The applicable review criteria address such issues
as the need for the units, their compliance with an adopted housing plan, the
proposed unit mix, and the price categories to which the units will be deed restricted.
As the proposed unit will comply with all requirements of APCHA's AJfordable
Housing Gultklines, the applicable review criteria would appear to have been met.
,-
~
..
..
..
.-
i, D.
Vested Property RightS') _ ~,~.(..' (\._
" J
./-"
In order to preselVe the land use approvals which may be obtained as
a result of this application, the Applicant hereby requests vested property rights
status pursuant to the provisions of Section 6-207 of the Land Use Regulations. It
is our understanding that, to establish such status, final approval of the proposed
development must be granted by ordinance of the City Council. It is also our
understanding that no specific submission requirements, or review criteria other than
a public hearing, are required to confer such status.
~
..
~
..
36
w
1
-
-
...
...
...
-
APPENDIX A
-
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT~ fhM.;,r Ru.GmfJ /~
APPIJ:CANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: . ~ f1tJAvu./
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: fY !cll~ g
OWNER'S NAME: ~ ~IYJ
I
SUMMARY
il,? r
EXHIBIT 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.
Type of Application:
2
-
elopment being requested:
-
-
....
....
3. . Areas is which Applicant has been
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
. Referral Aaent
fJk-
If 7.1)
~Jid'
~
;f/IPM 7
~,
to respond,
-
COlDments
- .
....
Review is: (P&Z only) (CC only) ~&Z then to ~
Public Hearing: ~~ (NO)
Number of copies of the application to be s1itted: tJ
What fee was applicant requested to submit: 3, 't~~ ~ j.~t./1" ,rS"
, UJ~ nSl/'
C#~~/'0
4.
-
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
-
8.
-
9.
""'"
-
Anticipated date of submission:
COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
frm.pre_app
-
-
-
..
...
-
..
..
..
..
...
-
..
..
-
..
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
..
..
-
..
-
-
-
-
- .220
II~..
Commitment for Title Insurance
EXHIBIT 2
Issued By
#
New York TRW
Title Insurance Inc.
New York TRW Title Insurance Inc., a New York Corporation, herein called the company, for a valuable con-
sideration, hereby commits 10 issue ils poiicy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of
the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in
the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject
to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and Ihe amount of the
policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of
the issuance of this Commilment or by subsequent endorsement.
'c-
This Commilment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or
policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies
is nol the fault of Ihe Company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, New York TRW Title Insurance Inc. has caused this Commitment to be signed as
of the effective date of Commitmenl shown in Schedule A. the Commitment to become valid when countersigned
by an aulhorized signatory.
Attest
New York TRW
Title Insurance Inc.
ATTEST
L~~
PRESIDENT
~A(if~
SECRETARY
By
ALTA Commitment Form
NM6(1O/85\
-
rRW
-
-
- l.
.....,
2.
-
..
..
...
-
..
-
-
..
.. 3 .
...
...
-
~,
4.
-
-
...
-
-
_.
...
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE IlfSURAJlCE
SCHEDULE A
Effective Date: 10/01/93
at
08:30 A.M.
Policy or Policies to be issued:
Case No. ?CT-8339
(a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form B-1970
(Rev. 10/90)
Proposed Insured:
AmountS TED
premi1lrnS 195.00
(b) ALTA Loan Policy,
(Rev. 10-90)
Proposed Insured:
AmountS
Prr:-rnium$
Tax Certiiic~te S20.00
Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate 0, interest in the land described or
referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested
in:
C.L. ASTOR & CO., A PARTNERSHIP
The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, ASTOR SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof
recorded May 14, 1980 in Plat Book 9 at Page 67. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE
OF COLORADO.
...
- Countersigned at:
INC.
....
..
...
-
-
..
-
..
...
-
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,
601 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO. 81611
303-925-1766
Fax 303-925-6527
Schedule F.-PG.1
This Commitment is ~nvalid
unless the Insuring
provis.:.ons c.nd Scheu':les
A and B are attached.
-
RW
'.
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
-
...
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors
of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
ITEM (b) proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit:
-
-,
..
-
THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS
NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS
SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY
RLSERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS
AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT
HERE3Y AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR
REQl~ST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS
ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY
FINANC:AL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY
IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE.
...
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
0-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~w
-
-
-
.,.,..
..
-
1-
.. 2.
3.
-
-
4.
-
5.
0
-
-
6.
-
-
7.
-
-
~.
...
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company:
Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
Discrepancies, conflicts in bounda--y lines, shortage in area, enchroachme~ts,
any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose
and which are not shown by the public records.
Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or
hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public rec~rds.
Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any,
created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the
effec~ive date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires
of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by
this Commitment.
Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed
for water or sewer service or tor any other special taxing district.
Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of
the United States as reserved in Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in
Book 185 at Page 69.
8. Agreement regarding payment of a percentage of water supply and
cesspool easement as set forth in Deed recorded April 17, 1967 in
Book 226 at Page 293.
9. Covenants as set forth in instrument recorded May 14, 1980 in Boo!;
388 at Page 850.
10. Subdivision Agreement recorded May 14, 1980 in Book 388 at Page 852.
- II.
-
-
-
...
....
...
...
...
...
...
-
...
...
...
Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of
subject property recorded May 14, 1980 in Plat Book 9 at Page 67.
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Schedule B-Secti~n 2
Commitment No. PCT-8339
..
SCHEDULE S-SECTION 1
CONTINUED
-
-
Exceptions numbered NONE are hereby omitted.
The OWner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following
items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1.
(2) Water rights, claims or title to water.
....
-
...
-
Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2;
NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective
insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family
residence (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of
that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an
exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics
or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is
extended to -he insured under the terms of the policy. A
satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company
against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Liens executed
by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit
must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items
and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon
request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the
OWner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for
further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing
contained in this paragraph shall be deemed to impose any
requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or
materialmens lien coverage.
...
..
A;,-
.,..
-
....
-
-
-
-
-
NOTE:
If the Company conducts the owners' closing under
circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or
filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company
will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage".
-
..
(c)
to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122);
The Subject Real property may be located in a Special Taxing
District;
A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction
may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County
Treasurer's Authorized Agent;
Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of
such districts may be obtained from the Board of County
Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County
AsseSSOl' .
NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County
Treasur~r b~ the Company and the costs thereof charged to
the proposed insured unless written instructio~ to the
contrary are received by the company prior to tche issuance of
the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment.
-
Pursuant
(a)
(b)
...
-
'.-.
...
..
-
-
..
Thi3 co~~it~ent is invalid unless
the Insuring provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Schedule B-Section 2
Commitment No. PCT-8339
-
..
...
-
EXHIBIT 3
.-
,..,.....
November 1, 1993
...
-
....
HAND DELIVERED
-
Ms. Kim Johnson
AspenlPitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
..
-
Re: Permission to Represent
-
Dear Ms. Johnson:
-
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Planning
Consultants, to represent me in the processing of my application for a GMQS allocation
and subdivision approval for my property which is located at 995 King Street in the City
of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to aet on my behalf with respect to all matters
reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application.
-
..
-
-
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
-
Sincerely,
-
-
...
..
~~AJ ~~
Carla Billings
2727 DeAnza Road
Shore Drive #33
San Diego, CA 92109
(619) 270-8444
-
-
...
-
-
SV:cwv
....
-
C:\busIciIY .ltr~tr20692.kj 1
..
..
-
..
..
-
-..
EXHIBIT 5
-
Vincent J. Higens
President
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX
Christina Davis
Vice President
',,",
-
-
-
300' OWNER'S LIST
...
-
pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of property owner's within three hundred feet of Astor Subdivision, as
obtained from the most current pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls, and
updated to October 01, 1993.
-
-
-
-
-
HAMES ARD ADDRESSES
TAX SCHEDULE HUMBER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
-
-
-
~;"
U I 1 !.h
--i- \ t f':'----
1/(\/.,,, t,j."\
. _,,!~' ! "" JI (.".';.S
'"'II:' !".~~..r "" ~. ..
V" '" VI \
AUTHORIZ~A~E
-
-
-
.~
-
-
..
-
-
""
-
.""
-
-
-
-
-
103 PARK PARTNERSHIP
154 E. LUPINE DR.
ASPEN
co
'1""'\
CARL E. SIEGESMUND
.-
P.O. BOX 9680
ASPEN
CO
..
...
...
CARL MARBACH
HELEN MARBACH
753 JOHNS LANE
OMBLER
PA
...
..
-
CHRISTINE ELKINS
1020 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
SUITE 26
ASPEN CO
-
-
-
DARYL SNADON
973 ST. ADDISON ROAD
SUITE 300
ASPEN CO
-
-
DIETER BIBBIG
-
P.O. BOX 175
ASPEN
CO
-
-
DONALD WILLIAM LANG
JACQUELYN A. KASABACH
P.O. BOX 4166
ASPEN
CO
.-
DR. LOTHAR M. VARADY
1164 BISHOP
SUITE 124
HONOLULU
HI
...
ELIZABETH OWEN FERGUS
JOHN C. FERGUS, II
500 S. FRONT ST., STE 700
COLUMBUS OH
-
-
,-
-
ERNST KAPPELI
-
P.O. BOX 1962
ASPEN
CO
...
2737-181-00-050
81611
2737-181-09-024
81612
2737-181-09-023
19002
2737-181-09-015
81611
2737-073-00-047
81611
2737-181-00-017
81612
2737-074-14-001
81612
2737-181-09-004
96813
2737-181-09-011
43215
2737-074-00-022
81612
EUGENE KALNITSKY
LINDA BUDIN KALNITSKY
1701 S. FLAGLER DR, APT. 1601
WEST PALM BEACH FL
.,..
",""..
FLORENCE E. HOSE
-
926 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN
CO
-
....
-
GRAHAN LOVING, III
5137 INDEPENDENCE ROAD
BOULDER CO
..,
-
""
HARRY MOORE
C/O M & I BANK / BONNIE WETTER
500 E. GRAND AVENUE
BELOIT WI
-
-
-
HENRY TRETTIN
LANA TRETTIN
17 QUEEN STREET
ASPEN CO
-
-
HOWARD EUGENE WILSON
-
-
407 PARK CIRCLE B
ASPEN
CO
-
-
HOWARD H. HATANAKA
-
980 KING STREET
ASPEN
CO
...
-
-
J. MICHAEL SOLHEIN
DALE HOWER SOLHEIM
P.O. BOX 4811
ASPEN
CO
-
-
6";JI
JAMES AND MARLENE MICKEY
-
927 GIBSON AVENUE
ASPEN
CO
..
-
-
JEAN STERN
-
1020 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
-
-
-
2737-181-09-019
33401
2737-182-01-002
81611
2737-181-09-002
80301
2737-181-45-002
53511
2737-073-00-038
81611
2737-074-26-002
81611
2737-074-14-002
81611
2737-181-09-013
81612
2737-074-00-004
81611
2737-181-09-021
81611
JEFFREY S. SHOAF
P.O. BOX 3123
ASPEN
co
..~
"....
JETTIE M. KELLY
NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE
P.O. BOX 82408
LINCOLN NE
-
-
-
-
JOE L. CANDREIA
-
930 KING STREET
ASPEN
CO
-
-
JOHN L. ENGLES, JR.
VELMA B. ENGLES
55 OTTER ROCK DRIVE
GREENWICH
CT
-
-
-
-
JOSEPH R. TARBET
BARBARA P. TARBET
980 GIBSON AVENUE
ASPEN
CO
-
-
-
KENNETH AND JANE OWEN TRUST
-
P.O. BOX 88
CHAPMAN RANCH
TX
-
-
LOIS M. BROWNELL VAGNEUR
-
P.O. BOX 28267
EL JEBEL
CO
-
LOIS M. BROWNELL VAGNEUR
..
-
P.O. BOX 28267
EL JEBEL
CO
-
-
LOIS M. BROWNELL VAGNEUR
-
P.O. BOX 28267
EL JEBEL
CO
...
-
-
MAGNE NOSTDAHL
ARNE MARTH INS SON
607 EAST COOPER AVENUE
ASPEN CO
-
-
-
-
2737-073-53-002
81612
2737-181-09-022
68501
2737 073 00 037
81611
2737-181-20-015
06830
2737-074-10-001
81611
2737-073-53-001
78347
2737-074-15-001
81628
2737-074-15-002
81628
2737-074-15-004
81628
2737-074-04-010
81611
MARCELLA DECRAY
.~
30 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA
MARGARET O. TROUSDALE
-
7 ALEXANDER LANE
LITTLETON
CO
-
-
MERCI 1984 IRREVOCABLE TRUST
C/O PAULINE T. HASTY
2 VINE STREET
ASPEN CO
..
-
-
-
MICHAEL S. CHURCHMAN
JULIA CHURCHMAN MC CUE
20 LE MANS COURT
SHAWNEE MISSION KS
-
-
MICHAEL W. MORGAN
MIRIAM ELMORE HARTHILL
3649 AUSTIN ROAD
BRAWLEY CA
-
-
NORMA LOIS DOLLE
-
P.O. BOX 4901
ASPEN
CO
-
-
NORTON AND JANET EISENBERG
407 PARK AVENUE
SUITE A
ASPEN CO
-
-
p.S.W.D. INVESTMENT CO., LTD.
C/O CARL LINNECKE
215 S. MONARCH, STE 101
ASPEN CO
-
-
-
-
PATRICIA S. MARA TRUST 89%
NANCY M. BLOCK 11%
2550 E. DESERT INN ROAD #128
LAS VEGAS NV
-
-
...
PAUL K. SCHROEDER
PATRICIA A. SCHROEDER
5020 CENTER CT.
BETTENDORF
IA
-
-
2737-074-00-025
94118
2737-181-09-007
80121
2737-074-00-024
81611
2737-181-09-025
66028
2737-074-00-021
92227
2737-181-09-009
81612
2737-074-26-001
81611
2737-181-45-001
81611
2737-074-26-003
89121
2737-181-09-020
52722
PAUL R. AUVIL, JR.
CAROLE AUVIL
1231 ASHLAND
WILMETTE
2737-181-09-005
IL
60091
...
PAUL R. HAMWI
D/B/A EQUITIES DIVERSIFIED OF COLORADO
630 EAST HYMAN AVE. SUITE 27
ASPEN CO 81611
2737-074-26-004
..
-
PETER HEINEMAN
2737-074-00-028
...
...
9899 SOUTH TURKEY CREEK ROAD
MORRISON CO
80465
...
-
-
PETER WIRTH
JANET B. WIRTH
P.O. BOX 9525
ASPEN
2737-074-10-002
-
CO
81612
-
-
R & R COMPANY
2737-181-25-001
-
653 26 1/2 ROAD
GRAND JUNCTION
CO
80222
-
-
RANDALL R. MARTIN TRUST
2737-181-09-001
-
-
1930 NORTH ORCHARD
CHICAGO
IL
60614
-
-
RITA BLITT 1/2
RICHARD & PEGGY KRIGEL
5530 MISSION DRIVE
SHAWNEE MISSION KS
2737-181-09-027
66208
-
ROBERT A. CARDWELL
1672 LOUISE STREET
2737-181-09-018
-
LAGUNA BEACH
CA
92651
.-
-
ROBERT F. LEWIS, GLORIA J. LEWIS
AND LINDA S. LEWIS
1028 E. HOPKINS, '23
ASPEN CO 81611
2737-181-09-008
-
-
-
ROBERT L. CARD
2737-181-25-002
...
'-
P.O. BOX 30036
GRAND JUNCTION
CO
81503
...
-
STEWART L. WALLIS & LYNDSAY SHADDOCK
C/O GREEN INTERNATIONAL INC.
5275 DTC PARKWAY, .44
ENGLEWOOD CO 80111
SAMUEL WEISBARD
RUTH WEISBARD
1160 CHATFIELD ROAD
WINNETKA
IL
SANDRA WILLIAMS
...
-..'1
718 HEATHERY LANE
NAPLES
FL
...
....
SETSUO AND TOMOKO ICHIMARU
3-924, KAMIOCHIAI 324-4
YONO-SHI, SAITAMA 338
JAPAN
...
...
-
..
STELLA HENRY CONNER TRUST
C/O NANCY F. GRAY, TRUSTEE
152 JUNIPER HILL
ALBUGUERGUE NM
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
SUNNYBROOK COLORADO, INC.
C/O KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS
201 N. MILLST., SUITE 201
ASPEN CO
-
-
-
-
SUSAN F. BARLOW
1010 GRAND AVENUE
SUITE 500
KANSAS CITY
MO
-
-
-
THERESA BIRRFELDER
APARTMENT 24
1028 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN
CO
-
-
-
-
THOMAS D. ISAAC
975 KING STREET
ASPEN
CO
-
-
-
VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST
215 S. MONARCH ST.
SUITE 101
ASPEN CO
-
-
-
2737-181-09-017
60093
2737-181-09-012
33963
2737-181-09-016
2737-181-09-014
87122
2737-181-09-026
2737-074-00-020
81611
2737-181-09-010
64106
2737-181-09-003
81611
2737-074-00-023
81612
2737-182-01-003
81611
WALTER H. PROCKTER
MARIAN H. PROCKTER
1815 S. FEDERAL BLVD.
DENVER
CO
-
WAYNE VAGNUER UND. 1/2 INT.
LOIS M. VAGNUER UND. 1/2 INT.
P.O. BOX 28267
EL JEBEL CO
-
~.
WILLIAM R. DUNAWAY
TENA D. FARR
P.O. BOX E
ASPEN
CO
-
..
-
..
WILLIAM R. DUNAWAY
BARBARA ALLEN DUNAWAY
P.O. BOX E
ASPEN CO
-
-
-
WILLIAM W. KENNEDY
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
3721 VENTURA DR., STE 100
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS IL
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2737-074-00-027
80219
2737-074-15-003
81628
2737-074--06-017
81612
2737-074-07-002
81612
2737-181-09-006
60004
-
;/
,
"'8rE::l~ .ISl:ltFr...., NAK ~.,. ,... ~O,
-'IL HOME ~Illt.. (.J"~ ~
€r d ~ ,
8N4/J;~ ~I<:~ At H f> I "'.
<90'
\7.::!/ I
I
,
@
.."c.
~
.
.
,:fJ/f;;. ~::. @
~
.,.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
~.
-
-
-
-
APPENDIX B
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
,
f
h
..
-0
. .
ji
.'
z .1
011
_h
(I) !ii
!;[ > Iii
..JOlh~
Q. m ita
::J I .
..J (/) 'I i
<II ,.
z 0::.1
~ ~i'
I ~I,
(I) 11
<[ !I
I.
~I
'i
~
~..:
e~
'.
,
..
'5
I"
'.'
n.
6 f ~
ill
~,., ~
~~~
>-oIl;:
Litj
.01
~~. ~
.. ,
!:i
~L
~ g~:
lJJ ~i~
o ~.~
>- ..U
Vi!!
Ci ;~~
m ?ff.
_ t!iJ<{
- i~o
(f) ..q 2
d5 z:~i:;
(f) jt ~ iH ;
a:::Si~ <( ~~~ ~
W.~fi U ~~S ~
Z~'g -l,'.
~.!i' Cl ,.' 0
~~i/~~ W ~1~ 5
OUl4a 0 "(:~ ~
tJ'l
p
[,
~ ' ] 1 r1
~~H ~~
o
.
.
,
~~
~ I,
~! '
<ll. l' ~
El"
,,1=
{1"
",:,
~ ~ 1
d' ,
. .
, ~
,;' .,
"
.
iih ;
,- I
CD~.
N" l
Ill"
lk~ ~! I !" E1HIBIT 1
~~~.~f ->~...J1 ~~
m~i ~i j!; 11 ~ IJ H H..;
'11 J. j lti a. 'l" H :
1i!i ~o ~~. Iii ~~i,~l -J~ ~;~ Ii ~
ri~gt ~ ~i :~~ ~ iOiit~~ ~~ ~~ !i~ ~
t~~~ i t ~~~ ot.: 'enl f ...Jt ,1 ~(z
i~~i... :1~ .. ~(I) a:::~ <t~. 1 5i
.'
I'
:j~~ It >- I ct~z) ~ ct" Ct:f1 W e!
,i:h~ . u!h I oi~ ; a.~ ~ IIII
~~::OI~ Il ~ ii: re~ II U'~...J ~ a. ", 0
l.!~; 1 I j::~il: i ,.,2 (!)!~ 13; ! eX,_ u:
,II" e ", Q:!: .' Z5 Z~ Ull:~ t- !i
'!~i... j W..OI l: - , ..::>0 ~ ~ I
.. ~ ~ ., i Ct~! ." z ~ 0" -. Y a: ~ ,
~<I~'Y!" w (l~Ui~i ~ ~ ~Op o~~15 ffiN w ~~2
Ilfl ' I , l"j i i IN Ih !' ~ lJ..I! U 111
;:m :1 I J~I"!U' ;! -1.1 ~ll~ ~;~ ~l!'! (!) ill
., f, - II ~ I' .:..., ~ J -, (!)! Z..:. ill
;;a9, 11- :I>-I-~Il III !l~l~ u, z~ elii"~
f'! fll....ll..lili!z.'z. .....,...,.
,~11'1 htr li>~h: '9hi.z:1 ....:! >-:1.0 t'
iil i . I It: IlH I . 'I' eX,~ a. ,I I- " ~Hi 1&1"
ii~!t ihu!iLm ilhi~1! ~;1 u1i Q:,L.
--
.
.~
~~
"
,
i:".
.
,
, ~
"~ 11
-~~~
"..:....~...$ J ~
/
,
,
I
I.~/
~,~~X .
'"+"! ' 1
".,L
~
,
,
"
fh
H~ ~I
~~nl- -..... 2
~;, :'1 ,J.---......
" r ~
:1 ~'I ~ : II ~
~ ~ "pi
-(.. II. .-~...:;;"-c,;;;".-;""-ruw:>'KIiC----".""".~1 '
~ ,I rj ~___~"~~_~~~'~_~~JJ/' y_.' ~
I ~ ~~ 0 ....GOI_ ...u"w-> ,,-u.. q ,/ \~
I ------.-" .
r1 j .5~~ ~ i i! ~
'j ~ " )
~~ N~ .... 'I~~,
l 1 "".,.. ~ ~ ~ : :;. ",
;~~ ~~i -F ~.-U :'J
I \! lb~ : ~'I
't~.-. ~ .~ j i
"g ,........~ ./j/'~~.
1 ~I' /.:::~?-V, d I
1,/ ~.
(,"',.l
/
/
I ,
~ ~ ~
I ~ c (
~ ~ ~ c'
Z ~ : 0:;
G ~ C .. a
o ..~ 8 ~ .. t
~~~i~l;o
I.'" 11
.. .,~~ III ~
f AU: 9:
.)( !I
iih
- I
. I
t I
V
~
,
...
..
-
-
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
EX BIT 2
1
j
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~.-
-
-
-
-
".....
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
.
,*...c_~
EXHIBIT 3
,
~
;l"tunju1 11:'12 11'\ ~lil-{ 11 l'l?,O RecerUnn.~
I
L
, ,,'-:!::1
l~~ ~~!l9:l J
Loretta Ranner Rwcorder
~"l~3H~ ..',t 852
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
Astor Subdivision
Tilts AGRF.EfotCNT, m.:lde anti entered into this 13tt .1ay of
~ay. 19P.O, bJ' ~nd bl!twr:.cl. C. L. ASTf1R , CO.
, a Colc.4do
gt!ncrai partnership (hereir.a.1:ter refQr.r~d to aa "ownr.l") and
the CITY or ASPEN, COLORADO, a municip~l corporation (heroinafter
referred to .J.~ the "City" I.
1\ I T N_E_S_S_E_T_"_:
WIIERr:^S, tho owner has submitted to the City for sub-
division approval, exccutirJI and recQrding, a Final Plat of the
AstrJr Subdivision consisting of three (.l) lots 8ituate on
cer,tain r.eal porpcrty in c.he City of Aspen, Pitkill County,
Colorado as is morc particularly dC9crlb~d on Exhibit -A-
"tto1chcd hereto nnd incorporated herein by this refl!rence, and
\'lIlER:::AS, the City has fully considerec. such FInal Plat
and is willing to grant approval of and execute the Plat in
conjunction with owner's agreements contained herein, all a.
required bi' virtue o~ the HubcUvision -:-egulation. of the City
of Asper., and
WHEREAS, t:.e owner ill willlnq to aCl.:ept the ~ondition.
contained herein and to enter into this agreement with the CIty
in ret~rn for the execution of the Final rlatl
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenant.
contained herein, the partie6 agree as follow.:
1. Any building constructed on Lot. 3 of tilt;
Astor Subdivision shall contain not more than two (2) dwelli.lq
unitll.
2. The current maxim~m permiAsiblo development in
the Astor Subdivision i. two (2) dwelling units per lot for a
total of six (6) dwellinq unitll. Any future deve~opment of the
property over and above these six (6) units shall DO subject
-'--li r
. .
;
.
i
~
-."
!~
.
--..
...;,
- _...- ,- --
~38~'/)':1
to the receIpt of growth management apIJrovt.:l anl a.llC'tme..
s~ch is defined dn~ rcg~latcd by the City Cod~.
3. Owner agrees to deed r~.trict throo ()) ~ut ot
the tot.:'J.l slx (6) dwcllinq units in the subdivilion 1('1 tha. . ~IO
restricted units sh~ll be used and occupied lolely by low,
modcrDt~ .,md mJddlc la-:omc individuals a. dufined by Jlou.lng
In~o:nc-E:l igibil i tr C,,> ide 1 ines Q'9tabllshed bOy the City Couneil of
t~c City of Aspen wb:lin the provisions ol Section 24,,10.4 (bJ (J),'
<Jf the ~1unicipal Co~.. of the CJty of AApcn.
4. Tt covenants and agreements of the owner
huretn shall b("! dOt !d covenants that run with the land, ahall
Lurdon the land in:~uded within the subdivision, and Ihall bind
and be specific"ll/ enfnt..l,;.1ble aqainst all prellent and subsequent
owners thcrrof, .~ludlnq the owner, its succe.sor. in interest,
9'rant~c8 ar.d a ~g~8.
S. On '! (("IC'ut.i. . \ of this 4qreerMtnt by a.11 parti..
hereto and reC"~ipt h' . .le City of ar.lJropria~e recordin~ fe.., the
City ar..,rec.s to app""" "lnd eKocute the Final Plat and to
autho,:,,1zc the ~. :..:'t,;.:.., ';" ~,. the .."!.me in thll rual property records
in P.ltk t.
unty, Colorado.
6. OWnp.r .qre~s to enter ~nto a sidewalk, ~urb
and tn',' tl!r imprO\"lment district In the event one i. fn4'.Ih'
IN WITNESS WHEREot, the parties have executed this
^qreement the!' ,lay and year first above written.
'r.
.,( TTES'r.
"
~' /- " J/:./ /
.IILil'':J..'" h' (.,' A,
athryn S. oc
Cit.y Cler
CITY OF ASPEN
:/r -:/2/ /
BYfHerm~7~
Mayor
C. L. ASTOR . C~
'-
By: '- ",. '..'1 ,'" -'"
Carla L. Astor
General rartn~r
.
-2-
_.. .
L
, .
..
j
;,.
.
l
I
~ r _ .1
I
...- ..
t'\1(l';]88 .\,,854
ST^TE OF COLORADO
sa.
COUNT\' or PITKIN
The forel'1oing Jnstrument was acknowledged before ~ this
rJilY of May, 1980. by IIERMAN EDEL, Mayor, and KATHRYN S.
KOCH, Clerk of the City of Aspen.
Witnc.~ mv hand a~~ offi~i~l s.al.
My commission expire!!1 U,Cammb:dlnpPirahnuar,2t.19o.!
~d.: ~,
ROtary Publ c
ST^TE OF COLORADO
'8.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
I
I
I
:J".~;:~ 10) I
'. 1
. r
I
-
. ..'J1.>/
\'.>::
'~'.::!
The foregoing instrument W~. acknowledgwd before me this
I; ,.1 day of May, 1980, by CARLA L. ASTOR, a. general partner
for C. L. AS1'OR " CO. , a Colnrado general part.nership.
W1tne.. m" hand and I'lflicial aea1. S
"tV commission exp:a.r : ~ "tl 11., It-l "l
~Lf1J.-
No ery PUbYc
-)-
.
.'
"
..."! "";
'.'
I,
...,,;
..,..."
'~-l!
I
t
'.'
'.
r
i
;.
.
-
''-'If 388" : B55
EXhiblt ..,\" to
~ubdlvision ^qre~ment
Aator SUl::dlvision
A portIon ot SectIon 7, Townehlp 10 80uth, Renqe 84 W.et
of the 6th Prlnelpe1 H.rldlen. Part ot tote 2, 3, 4, end 5,
B~oek 5 and part ot Lot. 5 and 6, 81er.k I, Huqh.. Addition,
and a part of Oueen Street more fully de.~rlbed .. follow..
BegInnIng at a poInt on the Southerly 11ne ot Klnq Street,
..1d polnt belnq S. 1B033' E. 385.26 teet tr~ eorner Ro. 11
Tract 40, East A'pen Addition, thenee s. 2.-30' W. 142.63 f..t,
thence S. 38026' W. 76.76 teet, thence M. 73029' W. 145.21 teet,
thence N. 23039' I. 142.87 teet, thence M. 6&021' w. 107.58 teet,.
thence N. 3.0.5' I. 93.75 teet to the Southerly I1ne of XlnJ
Street, thence S. 66021' I. 255.32 teet a10nq the 80uthar1y
line ~t Xlnq Street co the polnt ot beqInnlnq.
-
A
:.
j
~
,
EXHIBIT 4
~.... ,.v,...o;;: 1.._ ....
orC'l,-.!"d J I ;fl'l "n ~'<lV 1.1 1~:111 Rec~rt ion.
L""('~ '. I hdnnpr Pl"cot'der
~:",388 ..",850
.
,
I
.
I
I
I
I
J
.
l
l
- r'" .)
I
.l~ :: fl~1O
!?~\TtON or COVENI\.NTS
C. L. ASTOR' CO.
, a Coloradn general partnership
(hercin~ft~r referred to al ~covenantor") for itsell and it.
SUccessors and 8s!Jiqns hp.r...',y ~(W(!ln..."t!l with the City of _"pen,.
F'ltkin County, Colorado, that:
1. Covenantor is the owner of ~Jl!l 1, 2 and 3, Aleor
SUbdi\'ision, situate in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Color.ld.
'.
7he lower unit at the duplex situate on Lot 1, Astor
Subdivision, tne lower unit of ~tc durlcx .1tuat~ on Lot 2,
Astor Sl:bdi.-.-:.don, and the lower unit of the duplex to be
~onstrUctcu on Lot J, Astor SUbdivision, 8hal~ be used and
occupied sol~ly by low, modQrate and middle income individuar.
~.
as def int~d by Houainq Income-EllgibLl i ty Guidel inee '!stabll.hnd
by City Council of Clty of Aspen ~tthin the provi8ion of Sectton
24-10.-1 (l.o) (]l o! the MuniCipal Code- of the City of ^spen.
3. The covenants contained herein ar" to run with the"
land nnd shal t bind" be specifical ty cllft)rceable againat all
presort and subsequent owners ~hcreof, in~ludin~ the covenantor,
its .UCCCS8~rs and Jnterests. grantees and 3.stgn8.
IN WITNeSS WHEREOF, this DeclaratJon hds'~een duly
cxccutr.d this 13th day of May, 1980.
r
C. L. ^STOR , co. , a Colorado
general partnership
. ,
-'
.,
e~~L: ^8t~r, 90neral partner
"
~.~..... -P!:
., . 'lw~
. t!:..,
. .
, .
'",. .
i "' :.l/..~ ~
l..:.L::.
.
,
I.
!:-'
,
-,
-.,,~
,
i
~:,;,J88 ,.,851
ST^1'E or COLOMDO
...
COUNTY or PITKIN
^cknowledged.9u~Acribect and sworn to before me thl. 13th
J..1Y "f ~clr, 1980, t:., CARLA L. ASTOn, ae gen...'ral partner .fur
C. L. ASTOR , C~ , a Colorado general partnership.
M.y comm .ssion expires: (,r:,.t Il, 1'1'1, l.
Witness my hand and official seal.
'I.' ~
\., L,
~'.'(".a.....
No~ary pUbl c _
..1......
~ J ..,.'
f.1/',
"' ":,:. J' ::~
,'1.1' .
-2-
I t. f r:'
"C,.TJ!
;~~L1.
...~.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INe.
P.O. Box 2155
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 9~727 EX IT 5
Fax (303)925-4157 HIS
-
October 28, 1993
CONSUL riNG ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
-
-
Mr. Sunny Vann
VANN ASSOCIATES INC.
230 East Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO. 81611
-
-
-
-
RE: Bllllnas Prooertv, Residential Growth Manaaement Aoolication, Enaineerina Reoort
-
-
Dear Sunny:
-
-
This letter comprises an engineering report for relevant aspects of the Carla Billings property
(Astor Subdivision) resubdivision and Residential Growth Management Application to the City of
Aspen. My remarks are based on our discussions of the project, conversations with
representatives of the primary utilities and inspection of the site. I have also structured my
comments in response to the engineering related criteria of City of Aspen Municipal Code
Section 8-106 E., Residential development standards.
-
-
-
-
Introduction
-
-
The Carla Billings property comprises three existing lots located in the vicinity of 985 King Street
in Aspen, Colorado. The site currently Includes three existing duplex residential structures on
the three lots of the Astor Subdivision which was created In 1980. The application is for
resubdivision to create a fourth lot as well as growth management approval of an additional
residential unit and attached affordable housing unit in the R-6 zone district. With regard to the
requirements of Aspen Code Section 8-106 E. (1), Availability of public facilities and seNices, I
offer the following comments:
-
-
-
(a)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(b)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Water suoolv Based on my discussion with City of Aspen Water Superintendent Larry
Ballenger, the site is currentiy served by a 6 inch diameter cast iron main in the King
Street right-of-way. The City water system has sufficient capacity to serve the two
additional residential units created by this application and provision of water service
would not pose any special problems from a technical standpoint. As a site within the
City, service would be subject only to payment of appropriate tap and connection fees
for the service capacity required by the new structure.
Water service is available to the Billings project without any need for new water mains or
additional water treatment capacity.
Sanitarv sewer Based on my discussion of the project with Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District (ACSD) System Superintendent Tom Bracewell, there is an existing 8
Inch diameter sanitary sewer main in King Street. The ACSD has sufficient capacity to
serve the proposed residential duplex and would provide service, once again, subject
to payment of appropriate tap and connection charges associated with the capacity
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E . Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 . (303) 945-1004
,-
-
October 28, 1993
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 2
.-
-
requirements of the new building.
-
Tom also noted the need for some spot repairs and capacity improvements to the 10 inch
collection line downstream of this site in the Oklahoma Flats area. These repairs are to
be undertaken by the ACSD and are to be funded through the application of a tap fee
surcharge to new services, such as this one, impacting the line.
...
-
-
-
Sewer service is available to the Billings project without any direct need for new sewer
mains or additional sewage treatment capacity. Payment of the mandatory tap fee
surcharge by the applicant will provide a general benefit to the ACSD collection system
in the area.
...
-
-
(c)
Storm Drainaae Development of a residential duplex structure on the newly created lot
4 will not result in any additional drainage impacts to the surrounding area. Site design
is to incorporate on-site drainage features Including drywells to maintain historic
conditions with regard to runoff from the site.
-
...
-
-
This project will not create additional Impacts to the City of Aspen's storm drainage
system nor will it require improvements or expansion of the storm drainage system at
public expense.
-
-
-
(d)
Fire orotection Fire hydrants are currently In place at the west end of King Street,
approximately 250 feet west of the proposed residence, as well as at the intersection of
King Street and Gibson Avenue, approximately 350 feet east of the proposed residence.
The project site is well within a five minute response time from the Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department station on Hopkins Avenue.
...
-
...
-
Construction of a residential duplex on the Billings property will not require improvements
to area fire protection facilities.
-
-
(f)
Roads Existing traffic counts are not available for King Street. I would note that during
a site visit of over an hour on October 20th, 1993, I did not observe one vehicle utilizing
King Street. King Street Is currently a one-way street from west to east. Pavement width
Is approximately 23 feet in the area of the Billings property frontage, adequate for two-way
traffic flow. The west end of King Street near the Neal Avenue intersection, however, Is
as narrow as 14 feet and, along with poor site lines at the Intersection itself, Is one reason
the street was made one-way by the City of Aspen.
...
...
...
-
...
-
The Billings site represents one of very few remaining developable residential sites In the
King Street corridor. The site Is also well served by public transportation with a bus stop
at Gibson Avenue and Park Circle, approximately 500 feet from the new parcel. To
anticipate some basis for traffic generation from the additional residential duplex, I would
reference Section II, "Road Design Standards" of the Pitkin County Road Standards and
-
...
...
-
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
..
..
..
-
October 28, 1993
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 3
Specifications, as adopted on December 4, 1990, which recommends a vehicle trip
generation figure for single family residential units of 4 per day per unit assuming a strono
transit system. This would result In a traffic generation figure of just 8 vehicles per day
(vpd) Impacting the adjacent streets as a result of this project. While recent traffic counts
on King Street are not available, the adjacent street is currently well under capacity and
will see no adverse effect from an additional 8 vpd. No improvements to the adjacent
street are required as a result of the Billings property resubdivision and residential growth
management application.
I hope these comments will be sufficient for the Residential Growth Management application for
the Billings property. Please feel free to contact me if I may provide further Information or detail.
Very truly yours,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC.
fU~
---- -=
~
:Jay W. Hammond, P.E.
Principal, Aspen Office
- JHIIh 9PGMP
-
-
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
-
..
..
..
..
SCHMUESER GOROON MEYER. INC.